This chapter presents some objections to the argument contending that if a conclusion is an immediate consequence of the data, the burden of proof lies on those who would deny it. The main objection posits that each claim appearing to refer to a type is merely a manner of speaking for a claim that does not actually refer to a type. Because such apparent references can be “paraphrased away,” they are harmless, and we need not suppose that types exist. In denying the existence of types, the main motivation is epistemological in nature: knowledge of types, which are abstract objects, is not possible since knowledge requires some sort of relationship, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations with humans.
MIT Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.