Vann McGee

Tarski showed how to give satisfactory theories of truth for a wide variety of languages, but he required that the theory of truth for a language be formulated in an essentially richer metalanguage. Since there is no human language essentially richer than a natural language and since we would like to develop consistent theories of truth for natural languages, we would like to learn how to formulate a theory of truth for a language within that very language. ;Toward this end, I consider a class of formalized languages called partially interpreted languages, derived from the work of Carnap, in which sentences are classified as definitely true, definitely false, and intermediate. I give a condition of adequacy, analogus to Tarski's Convension T, requiring that is true be definitely true iff is definitely true , and show that it is possible to give, effectively and explicity, a theory of truth that meets the condition. Theories of truth that meet the condition are shown to have various pleasant properties. The construction depends heavily upon the work of Saul Kripke. ;In addition to the work of Tarski and Kripke, the "naive semantics" of Gupta and Herzberger is discussed. Of the paradoxes other than the liar, only Montague's paradox about necessity is discussed in any detail. To solve this paradox, I recommend a provability interpretation of modal logic of the type studied by Solovay. Prospects for extending Solovay's results into quantified modal logic are discussed. ;The work is entirely concerned with formal languages, although it is hoped that the tools developed can be usefully applied to natural languages.

There's Something about Gödel is a bargain: two books in one. The first half is a gentle but rigorous introduction to the incompleteness theorems for the mathematically uninitiated. The second is a survey of the philosophical, psychological, and sociological consequences people have attempted to derive from the theorems, some of them quite fantastical.The first part, which stays close to Gödel's original proofs, strikes a nice balance, giving enough details that the reader understands what is going on in the proofs, without giving so many that the reader feels overburdened. Perhaps he skimps too much on details, as when he decides not to explain how to convert recursive definitions into explicit ones. Also, I wish he had talked about Löb's theorem. But these are small complaints.The second half discusses a sampling of what one reads about Gödel's theorems in philosophy journals and in the popular press, and here Berto often finds himself exasperated, especially by …

Mathematical realism is the doctrine that mathematical objects really exist, that mathematical statements are either determinately true or determinately false, and that the accepted mathematical axioms are predominantly true. A realist understanding of set theory has it that when the sentences of the language of set theory are understood in their standard meaning, each sentence has a determinate truth value, so that there is a fact of the matter whether the cardinality of the continuum is א2 or whether there are measurable cardinals, whether or not those facts are knowable by us.

That reference is inscrutable is demonstrated, it is argued, not only by W. V. Quine's arguments but by Peter Unger's "Problem of the Many." Applied to our own language, this is a paradoxical result, since nothing could be more obvious to speakers of English than that, when they use the word "rabbit," they are talking about rabbits. The solution to this paradox is to take a disquotational view of reference for one's own language, so that "When I use 'rabbit,' I refer to rabbits" is made true by the meaning of the word "refer." The reference relation is extended to other languages by translation. The explanation for this peculiarly egocentric conception of semantics-questions of others' meanings are settled by asking what I mean by words of my language-is to be found in our practice of predicting and explaining other people's behavior by empathetic identification. I understand other people's behavior by asking what I would do in their place