Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy https://jhaponline.org/jhap <p>JHAP aims to promote research in and discussion of the history of analytical philosophy. <a href="/jhap/about">Read more ...</a></p> en-US <p>The Public Knowledge Project recommends the use of the Creative Commons license. The Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy requires authors to agree to a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution /Non-commercial license</a>. Authors who publish with the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy agree to the following terms:</p> <ol> <li class="show">Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">Creative Commons BY-NC license</a>.</li> <li class="show">Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li> <li class="show">Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)</li> </ol> <p><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/" rel="license"><img style="border-width: 0;" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/3.0/88x31.png" alt="Creative Commons License"></a><br>This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/" rel="license">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License</a>.</p> ayap@uvic.ca (Audrey Yap) scom@mcmaster.ca (Gabriela Mircea) Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:40:29 +0000 OJS 3.3.0.7 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Carnap and Quine on Sense and Nonsense https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/4743 <p>I offer an interpretation of Carnap and Quine’s views on cognitive significance and insignificance. The basic idea behind their views is as follows: to judge an expression is insignificant is to recommend it not be used in or explicated into languages used to express truth-valued judgments in inquiry; to judge an expression is significant is to recommend it be used in or explicated into such languages. These judgments are pragmatic judgments, made in light of purposes for language use in inquiry. For Carnap at least, these pragmatic judgments are non-cognitive. This basic idea is only a roughly correct statement of their views. This is because the details of the scientific languages they recommend for inquiry are necessary to understand their views and the way they understand their own views. Even so, I offer two reasons to suggest that this basic idea is worthy of our consideration today. First, it provides a conception of significance that captures the natural thought that epistemological concerns can lead us to consider expressions to be insignificant without requiring an objectionable form of verificationism. Second, if we appeal also to Carnap and Quine’s pluralistic attitude toward explication, we can make a pragmatic judgment that an expression is insignificant while judging it to be significant on a distinct explication of significance fit for describing and explaining natural language.</p> James Andrew Smith Copyright (c) 2021 James Andrew Smith https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/4743 Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0000