[FOM] Deflationism and the Godel phenomena

[Neil Tennant]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Jeffrey Ketland wrote:

> 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.

With all respect, I don't think that my distinguishing between (i) and
(ii) made your sentence ambiguous in context. I distinguished (i) and (ii)
only in order to anticipate the objection that you *might* have meant (i)
rather than (ii). I was clearly dismissing (i) as what you meant, because
(though acceptable) it is so anodyne. But, OK, if (i) is all that you
meant, I shall henceforth take your word for it. My objection to (ii) will
then be noted by anyone who, understandably, might have understood you to
have been claiming (ii) rather than (i).

Neil Tennant