aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/epistemology.bib
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSilvio Rhatto <rhatto@riseup.net>2020-12-26 08:39:34 -0300
committerSilvio Rhatto <rhatto@riseup.net>2020-12-26 08:39:34 -0300
commitad0d0fc528701708e9abf77c3592a5511e33911d (patch)
tree2e02ddc27abbb35128f64b1e1c8fbc39a19110fe /epistemology.bib
parent77a7e44827dd951cf2e2d54fe7c5d9accfbe113a (diff)
downloadbiblio-ad0d0fc528701708e9abf77c3592a5511e33911d.tar.gz
biblio-ad0d0fc528701708e9abf77c3592a5511e33911d.tar.bz2
Some papers on ontology
Diffstat (limited to 'epistemology.bib')
-rwxr-xr-xepistemology.bib19
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/epistemology.bib b/epistemology.bib
index 6122cf1..740b20f 100755
--- a/epistemology.bib
+++ b/epistemology.bib
@@ -120,3 +120,22 @@
publisher = {Unesp},
edition = {1a},
}
+
+@misc{cocco2020,
+ month = {November},
+ title = {The ontology of a theory},
+ author = {Lorenzo Cocco},
+ year = {2020},
+ keywords = {Ontology; ontological commitment; regimentation program; constructional systems; extensionalism; postulation;},
+ url = {http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18411/},
+ abstract = {This paper defends two claims about the criterion of commitment of W.V.O Quine. The first claim is that the criterion can be made extensional. The second is that a proper formulation becomes an analytic truth. We spend a few preliminary sections clarifying our intended notion of ontological commitment. We will not go very far in our investigation of the criterion if we do not distinguish (1) the things a theory postulates, (2) what its adherents, or anybody else, believe in, and (3) which of these entities we have compelling reasons to accept. A look at [Quine 1953] shows that the criterion concerned the postulation of entities by theories, but it is often misread as an attempt to say something about either (2) or (3). The core of the paper is an exposition of two formulations of the criterion. I first state a schema improving on that of [Scheffler and Chomsky 1959]. The second formulation is a single principle and construes commitment as a relation between theories and predicates: ontological commitment to the entities that satisfy a given predicate. Both criteria are extensional and are formulated for constructional systems, in the sense of [Carnap 1928] and [Goodman 1951], rather than for theories construed as interpreted sets of sentences. This solves a problem raised by [Halvorson 2019]. Their analyticity is substantiated by showing that their most controversial consequences are instances of Tarski?s Convention (T).}
+}
+
+@article{wildman2006,
+ title = {An Introduction to Relational Ontology},
+ author = {Wesley J. Wildman},
+ publisher = {Boston University},
+ year = {2006},
+ month = {5},
+ url = {http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/images/docs/(72)%202010%20-%20Wildman%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Relational%20Ontology%20(final%20author%20version)%20-%20Polkinghorne%20ed.pdf},
+}