Papineau has suggested that the Principle of Non-Contradiction is a logical law that ?verificationists? are not entitled to claim as a prioritrue. The Principle, like that of Excluded Middle, is not sufficiently grounded in the ?miserly? epistemology of verificationism to be proven in ?verificationist logic?. We examine who might be challenged by this claim: who are the ?verificationists?? We defend our candidates against Papineau's criticisms and other attacks, but this leaves the verificationist open to a different criticism.

Writers such as Stalnaker and Dummett have argued that specific features of subjunctive conditional statements undermine the principle of bivalence. This, paper is concerned with rebutting such claims. 1. It is shown how subjective conditionals pose a prima facie threat to bivalence, and how this threat can be dissolved by a distinction between the results of negating a subjective conditional and of negating its consequent. To make this distinction is to side with Lewis against Stalnaker in a dispute about possible (...) worlds semantics for such conditionals, and reasons are given for doing so. 2. These arguments are extended to answer Dummett''s claim that behaviourist and phenomenalist analyses in terms of subjunctive conditions violate bivalence. This answer is shown to be compatible with the principle that hypothetical statements are true only in virtue of categorical facts. (shrink)

SummaryThe platonist, in affirming the principle of bivalence for sentences for which there is no decision procedure, disconnects their truth‐conditions from conditions that would enable us to prove them ‐ as if Goldbach's conjecture, say, might just happen to be true. According to Dummett, what has gone wrong here is that the meaning of the relevant sentences has been conceived so as to go beyond what could be learned in learning to use them, or displayed in using them competently. Dummett (...) draws the general conclusion that accounts of meaning must traffic only in decidable circumstances. I suggest that Dummett can be right about platonism but wrong in this general conclusion: the centrality of decidable circumstances in competent use of language is a special feature of mathematical language. This means that someone who recoils from the anti‐realism constituted by Dummett's generalized anti‐platonism, in the case of, say, statements about other minds, need not be recoiling into a close analogue of platonism, as Dummett suggests. We can reinstate the intuitive idea that platonism goes wrong by inappropriately modelling the epistemology and metaphysics of mathematics on the epistemology and metaphysics of the natural world. And we make room for the suggestion that anti‐realism makes a converse mistake; in this vein, I propose a picture of Dummettian anti‐realism as a novel expression of familiar and suspect epistemological and metaphysical thoughts. (shrink)