Why the Modal Logician Need Not Worry About the Slingshot Argument Any More
Languages of publication
The authors address various versions of the so-called slingshot argument, which Quine uses in his various attacks on modal logic. They sketch out various formulations of the argument and explain different interpretations of them. Then they show that none of the interpretations is logically sound - each of them tacitly assumes some premise regarding identity or equivalence that is unacceptable. Subsequently they provide some insights into the motivations that might have led Quine to present repeatedly a fallacious argument, and they surmise that the rejection of the slingshot arguments would require a revision of Quinean holism.
Publication order reference
CEJSH db identifier