<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">605539111</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20210128100905.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">210128e20150801xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1007/s10992-014-9327-5</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10992-014-9327-5</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Schindler</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Thomas</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2">
   <subfield code="a">A Disquotational Theory of Truth as Strong as Z 2 − $Z_{2}^{-}$</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Thomas Schindler]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">T-biconditionals have often been regarded as insufficient as axioms for truth. This verdict is based on Tarski's (1935) observation that the typed T-sentences suffer from deductive weakness. As indicated by McGee (1992), the situation might change radically if we consider type-free disquotational theories of truth. However, finding a well-motivated set of untyped T-biconditionals that is consistent and recursively enumerable has proven to be very difficult. Moreover, some authors (e.g. Glanzberg (2005)) have argued that any solution to the semantic paradoxes necessarily involves ‘inflationary' means, thus spelling doom to deflationist and minimalist truth theories in particular. The situation is indeed worrisome as formal theories of minimalist truth are (almost) missing so far. This makes it very hard to properly evaluate the tenets of minimalism. In the present article, we will show how to find safe instances of the T-schema just by relying on syntactic features of the sentences of our language—in particular, we will explore Quine's (1937) idea of stratification. Based on that, we will introduce some disquotational truth theories that are deductively very strong.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2014</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Axiomatic theories of truth</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Minimalism</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Second-order arithmetic</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Relative interpretations</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Deflationism</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">T-schema</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Journal of Philosophical Logic</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">44/4(2015-08-01), 395-410</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0022-3611</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">44:4&lt;395</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2015</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">44</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">10992</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-014-9327-5</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Springer special CC-BY-NC licence</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-springer</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-014-9327-5</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">100</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Schindler</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Thomas</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Journal of Philosophical Logic</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">44/4(2015-08-01), 395-410</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0022-3611</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">44:4&lt;395</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2015</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">44</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">10992</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
