McGee on Horwich

Ryan Christensen

pp. 205-218

in: Synthese 193 (1), 2016.

Abstract

Vann McGee has argued against solutions to the liar paradox that simply restrict the scope of the T sentences as little as possible. This argument is often taken to disprove Paul Horwich’s preferred solution to the liar paradox for his Minimal Theory of truth (MT). I argue that Horwich’s theory is different enough from the theory McGee criticized that these criticisms do not apply to Horwich’s theory. On the basis of this, I argue that propositional theories, like MT, cannot be evaluated using the same methods as sentential theories.

Cited authors

Horwich Paul

McGee Vann