[FOM] axioms and implicit definitions
praatika@mappi.helsinki.fi
praatika at mappi.helsinki.fi
Wed Oct 22 11:34:55 EDT 2008
There is a traditional conventionalist idea, sometimes ascribed to
Hilbert, and apparently held e.g. by Schlick, that axioms *implicitly
define* the meanings of the primitive expressions of the system, or
something like that.
(The notion of "implicit definiability" intended here should not be
conflated with the different idea with the same name in model theory;
e.g. in Beth's theorem)
Surely many things could be said about this view, but it is not clear
to me whether there is some widely accepted, standard criticism of
this idea? Some standard references?
I have some patchy ideas about this, but I would be grateful for any
informed advice.
Best, Panu
Panu Raatikainen
Ph.D., Academy Research Fellow,
Docent in Theoretical Philosophy
Department of Philosophy
University of Helsinki
Finland
E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/praatika/
More information about the FOM
mailing list