[FOM] Deflationism and the Godel phenomena

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Neil Tennant wrote:

Jeffrey Ketland:
>> The intended meaning of this sentence was:
>>
>> (C) Tr(PA) *does* prove G; and (PA + T-sentences) doesn't.

Neil Tennant:
> In that case, why didn't you write exactly that, rather than the
> misleadidng, unambiguous, false claim that you wrote instead?

Why didn't I write that? Unfortunately, it didn't occur to me at the time 
that what I wrote was ambiguous at all. I can assure you that I was claiming 
something like (C). Namely, that there is at least one way to do this using 
the truth-theoretic extension of PA. I.e., we can prove G in Tr(PA), and 
that the theory with the disquotational T-sentences can't. And this is 
right. The other interpretation (that there is no other way to do it) simply 
didn't occur to me.

In any case, now you're claiming (above) that the sentence is 
"unambiguous"!!
But this now seems to contradict what you said in 2002. Your analysis was 
that my sentence has two readings. You wrote:

      The quote given from Ketland at the end of the
       previous section is acceptable when the word
       'involves' is replaced by 'could be displayed by
       invoking':

           (i) our ability to recognize the truth of Gödel
           sentences could be displayed by invoking
           a theory of truth (Tarski's) which significantly
           transcends the deflationary theories;

       But it is unacceptable when 'involves' is replaced
       by 'can be displayed only by invoking':

            (ii) our ability to recognize the truth of Gödel
            sentences can be displayed only by invoking
            a theory of truth (Tarski's) which significantly
            transcends the deflationary theories.

OK. I meant something like (i). According to your 2002 article, this is 
"acceptable".
But now you seem to say that the sentence which you yourself treated as 
ambiguous in 2002 has now become unambiguous.

It's ambiguous, I agree. As I pointed out in my Jan 2005 reply, (ii) is not 
the intended reading. I simply did not assume (ii). It plays no role 
anywhere in my article.
There seems to be nothing more to say on the matter, except to agree that I 
said something ambiguous and that you chose the interpretation that I didn't 
mean.

--- Jeff