User:KYPark/1957

Bertrand Russell

 * Mr Strawson on Referring
 * Bertrand Russell (1905) "On Denoting"
 * C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards (1923) The Meaning of Meaning
 * This contextual or causal theory of reference was in fact the most striking and devastating attack on Frege-Russell's theory of direct reference, making Russell write two reviews, which in turn led young to psycho-linguistics! See also the triangle of reference and talk:triangle of reference.
 * Peter Strawson (1950) "On Referring"
 * Ernest Gellner (1959) Words and Things
 * Paul Grice (1975) "Logic and Conversation"
 * This title appears to mark the moment and monument of the end of the 70-years long war where logician Logic was definitely defeated at last by Oxonian Conversation favoring variable contexts!

In effect, Strawson abandons the idea that what is known as bivalent logic must be sufficient to explain ordinary language. Bivalent logic, also known as classical logic because of its origins in ancient philosophy, is the logic we have been working with in this chapter. It allows a choice between precisely two truth-values for any proposition: 'true' and 'false'. Strawson argues that in some contexts a statement may have neither of these values, because the question of its truth of falsity may just not arise. Some logicians have proposed a three-valued, or trivalent logic which is sometimes described as containing the values 'true', 'false' and 'neither-true-nor-false'. An example such as Russell's the king of France sentence, when the presupposition necessary for it to be either true or false fails, must be classified as having this third truth-value. Other logicians have suggested that it is possible to retain a bivalent system, as long as a 'truth-value gap' is included to account for such examples.

It is a testimony to Bertrand Russell's longevity and enduring interest in philosophy that in 1957, fifty-two years after originally publishing 'On denoting', he produced a response to Strawson's challenge, in an article entitled 'Mr Strawson on referring'. This response is short and polemical, and serves to highlight the differences between the approaches to the study of meaning adopted by Russell, with his interest in mathematical logic, and by Strawson. Russell sum up this difference, from his own point of view, by describing how many philosophers of the time, including Strawson,
 * Are persuaded that common speech is good enough not only for daily life, but also for philosophy. I, on the contrary, am persuaded that common speech is full of vagueness and inaccuracy, and that any attempt to be precise and accurate requires modification of common speech both as regards vocabulary and as regards syntax. (387)

Russell saw the task of the philosopher as being, in part, to modify imprecise natural language to reflect 'correct' logical structure. In his response, he reiterates his commitment to the idea that every meaningful sentence must, in accordance with classical logic, be either true of false. His aim had always been to find an adequate way of explaining this logic; ... (pp. 61-62) More...)

Colin Cherry

 * On Human Communication: A Review, a Survey, and a Criticism : The M.I.T. Press

Noam Chomsky

 * Syntactic Structures
 * laid the foundation of his idea of transformational grammar.
 * believed by many academics to be a watershed moment in the annals of modern linguistics.
 * Famous computer scientist Donald Knuth admits to reading Syntactic Structures during his honeymoon and being greatly influenced by it.

Alexandre Koyré

 * From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe
 * Cf. Gaston Bachelard (1938)
 * Cf. Thomas Kuhn (1962)

William Sargant

 * ''Battle for the Mind&#58; The Mechanics of Indoctrination, Brainwashing and Thought Control
 * Pan Books


 * Behaviorism, Brainwashing, Classical conditioning, Methodism, Mind control, Project MKULTRA

Burrhus Skinner

 * Verbal Behavior
 * Cf. Noam Chomsky (1959) A Review