Contre la thèse qui réduit le raisonnement juridique à une simple rhétorique, l’article entend montrer que ce raisonnement répond à une exigence de vérité. Une telle démonstration exige de repenser la relation entre logique et rhétorique dans le champ juridique. La logique ici mobilisée est une logique de la probabilité, appropriée à la rationalité pragmatique. C’est du même coup la relation entre logique juridique et logique probabiliste qui se trouve interrogée, d’une part dans une perspective historique, d’autre part en tenant (...) compte des études contemporaines sur le sujet. (shrink)

Summary A. Vagueness is not definable in terms of behaviour (Section 4).

As far as ‘modern’ logical theories of vagueness are concerned, a main distinction can be drawn between ‘semantical’ ones and ‘pragmatical’ ones. The latter are defended here, because they tend to retake into account important contextual dimensions of the problem abandoned by the former. Their inchoate condition seems not alarming, since they are of surprisingly recent date. This, however, could very well be an accidental explanation. That is, the true reason for it might sooner or later turn out to be (...) bearing exactly on the fundamental human limitations, when it comes to theorizing, that these approaches are urging us to appreciate. (shrink)

Charles Clark; Why Teachers Need Philosophy, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 23, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 241–252, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-.

This paper was written with two aims in mind. A large part of it is just an exposition of Tarski’s theory of truth. Philosophers do not agree on how Tarski’s theory is related to their investigations. Some of them doubt whether that theory has any relevance to philosophical issues and in particular whether it can be applied in dealing with the problems of philosophy (theory) of science. In this paper I argue that Tarski’s chief concern was the following question. Suppose (...) a language L belongs to the class of languages for which, in full accordance with some formal conditions set in advance, we are able to define the class of all the semantic interpretations the language may acquire. Every interpretation of L can be viewed as a certain structure to which the expressions of the language may refer. Suppose that a specific interpretation of the language L was singled out as the intended one. Suppose, moreover, that the intended interpretation can be characterized in a metalanguage L +. If the above assumptions are satisfied, can the notion of truth for L be defined in the metalanguage L + and, if it can, how can this be done? Many students of Tarski’s conception will find the above exposition inconsistent with their own views on the essence of Tarski’s conception. On the other hand, as it is argued in this paper, the proposed interpretation of Tarski’s ideas allows one to use Tarski’s theory as a fundamental tool for semantic analyses of various theories, factual theories in particular. More specifically, it is argued that Tarski’s theory of truth allows one to clearly oppose a theory meant to be certain deductive system (a set of accepted sentences, say axioms, and a logical machinery for deducing from them new ones) and a theory meant to be a certain semantic system, i.e a set of sentences that serve to communicate some states of affairs and to use that opposition to explicate and occasionally also define the notion of truth. The opposition in question is of the utmost significance for analyzing some developments in both mathematics and factual sciences. The approach which is concerned with the logical relations between the elements of science such an approach is throughout this paper called analytical is put into question. The growth of science is determined by how well scientific theories are able to account for factual states of affairs. The intuitive notion of truth applied by the scientists does not necessarily correspond in a straightforward way to its Tarskian counterpart. On the other hand, as is claimed in this paper, the Tarskian notion of truth offers as adequate explication of intuitive notion of truth as possible. (shrink)

Words have meaning. Sentences also have meaning, but their meaning is different in kind from any collection of the meanings of the words they contain. I discuss two puzzles related to this difference. The first is how the meanings of the parts of a sentence combine to give rise to a unified sentential meaning, as opposed to a mere collection of disparate meanings (UP1). The second is why the formal ontology of linguistic meaning changes when grammatical structure is built up (...) (UP2). For example, the meaning of a sentence is a proposition evaluable for truth and falsity. In contrast, a collection of the meanings of its parts does not constitute a proposition and is not evaluable for truth. These two puzzles are closely related, since change in formal ontology is the clearest sign of the unity of meaning. The most popular strategy for answering them is taking the meanings of the parts as abstractions from primitive sentence meanings. However, I argue that, given plausible psychological constraints, sentence meanings cannot be taken as explanatory primitives. Drawing on recent work in Generative Grammar and its philosophy, I suggest that the key to both unity questions is to distinguish strictly between lexical and grammatical meaning. The latter is irreducible and determines how lexical content is used in referential acts. I argue that these referential properties determine a formal ontology, which explains why and how formal ontology changes when grammatical structure is built up (UP2). As for UP1, I suggest that, strictly speaking, lexical meanings never combine. Instead, whenever grammar specifies a formal ontology for the lexical meanings entering a grammatical derivation, further lexical (or phrasal) meanings can only specify aspects of this recursive grammatical process. In this way, contemporary grammatical theory can be used to address old philosophical problems. (shrink)