Teorías de la verdad sin modelos estándar: Un nuevo argumento para adoptar jerarquías

In this paper, I have two different purposes. Firstly, I want to show that it's not a good idea to have a theory of truth that is consistent but omega-inconsistent. In order to bring out this point, it is useful to consider a particular case: FS (Friedman-Sheard). I argue that in First-order languages omega-inconsistency implies that a theory of truth has not standard model. Then, there is no model whose domain is the set of natural numbers in which this theory of truth could acquire a consistent interpretation. So, in theories of truth without standard models, the introduction of the truth-predicate to a first order theory does not maintain the standard ontology. I add that in Higher-order languages the situation is even worst. In second order theories with standard semantic the same introduction produces a theory that doesn't have a model. So, if an omega-inconsistent theory of truth is bad, an unsatisfiable theory is really bad. Secondly, I propose to give up the union principle of theories FSn and accept an indefinite extensibility of theories FS0, FS1, FS2, FS3, ... According to my view, the sequence of theories has the same virtues of FS without its disgusting consequences.En este artículo, tengo dos objetivos distintos. En primer lugar, mostrar que no es una buena idea tener una teoría de la verdad que, aunque consistente, sea omega-inconsistente. Para discutir este punto, considero un caso particular: la teoría de Friedman-Sheard FS. Argumento que en los lenguajes de primer orden omega inconsistencia implica que la teoría de la verdad no tiene modelo estándar. Esto es, no hay un modelo cuyo dominio sea el conjunto de los números naturales en el cual esta teoría de la verdad pueda tener una interpretación consistente. En ese sentido, la introducción del predicado veritativo no mantiene la ontología estándar. Además, cuando se considera un lenguaje de orden superior, la situación es aun peor. En teorías de segundo orden con semántica estándar, la misma introducción produce una teoría que no tiene modelo. Por eso, si la omega-inconsistencia es un mal síntoma, la insatisfacibilidad de una teoría es aun peor. En segundo lugar, propongo abandonar el principio de unión de teorías FSn y aceptar una extensibilidad indefinida de teorías FS0, FS1, FS2, FS3, ... . De acuerdo a mi punto de vista, la secuencia de teorías tiene las mismas virtudes que FS sin sus desagradables consecuencias

Inconsistency, paraconsistency and ω-inconsistency

In this paper I'll explore the relation between ω-inconsistency and plain inconsistency, in the context of theories that intend to capture semantic concepts. In particular, I'll focus on two very well known inconsistent but non-trivial theories of truth: LP and STTT. Both have the interesting feature of being able to handle semantic and arithmetic concepts, maintaining the standard model. However, it can be easily shown that both theories are ω-inconsistent. Although usually a theory of truth is generally expected to be ω-consistent, all conceptual concerns don't apply to inconsistent theories. Finally, I'll explore if it's possible to have an inconsistent, but ω-consistent theory of truth, restricting my analysis to substructural theories.Fil: Da Re, Bruno. Universidad de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas - Sadaf; Argentin

Dogmatism and Theoretical Pluralism in Modern Cosmology

This work discusses the presence of a dogmatic tendency within modern cosmology, and some ideas capable of neutralizing its negative influence. It is verified that warnings about the dangers of dogmatic thinking in cosmology can be found as early as the 1930's, and we discuss the modern appearance of "scientific dogmatism". The solution proposed to counteract such an influence, which is capable of neutralizing this dogmatic tendency, has its origins in the philosophical thinking of the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906). In particular we use his two main epistemological theses, scientific theories as representations of nature and theoretical pluralism, to show that once they are embodied in the research practice of modern cosmology, there is no longer any reason for dogmatic behaviours.Comment: 14 pages; LaTeX sourc

Categoricity, Open-Ended Schemas and Peano Arithmetic

One of the philosophical uses of Dedekind’s categoricity theorem for Peano Arithmetic is to provide support for semantic realism. To this end, the logical framework in which the proof of the theorem is conducted becomes highly significant. I examine different proposals regarding these logical frameworks and focus on the philosophical benefits of adopting open-ended schemas in contrast to second order logic as the logical medium of the proof. I investigate Pederson and Rossberg’s critique of the ontological advantages of open-ended arithmetic when it comes to establishing the categoricity of Peano Arithmetic and show that the critique is highly problematic. I argue that Pederson and Rossberg’s ontological criterion deliver the bizarre result that certain first order subsystems of Peano Arithmetic have a second order ontology. As a consequence, the application of the ontological criterion proposed by Pederson and Rossberg assigns a certain type of ontology to a theory, and a different, richer, ontology to one of its subtheories