Does “possible” ever mean “logically possible”?

Philosophia 8 (2-3):389-403 (1978)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Are skeptical arguments invalid because they trade on an ambiguity of the word "possible," asserting that it is possible that our experiences are not of anything outside our own minds and concluding that it is not certain that there is an external world outside our own minds? It is sometimes asserted that such arguments invalidly trade on an ambiguity of "possible" where the premise is true only in the sense "logically possible" while the inference is valid only in the sense "empirically possible." However, once we distinguish different grammatical complements of the phrase "it is possible" we recognize that, when used with the same complement, "possible" is not ambiguous. So the claim that skeptical arguments trade on an ambiguity of "possible" fails.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Das normative "ist" und das konstatiere "soll".Ferber Rafael - 1988 - Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 74:185-192.
A problem for actualism about possible worlds.Alan McMichael - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (1):49-66.
Leibniz's World-Apart Doctrine.Adam Harmer - 2016 - In Brown Gregory & Yual Chiek, Leibniz on Compossibility and Possible Worlds. Cham: Springer. pp. 37-63.
Frege o význame.Marián Zouhar - 1997 - Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 4 (1):15-38.
Modal epistemology.Peter Van Inwagen - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 92 (1):67--84.
Leibniz's "Possible Worlds".Yuesheng Liu - 2018 - Journal of Human Cognition 2 (1):42-51.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
496 (#65,254)

6 months
106 (#67,879)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Gomberg
University of California, Davis

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Verification Argument.Charles A. Baylis & Norman Malcolm - 1951 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 16 (4):300.

Add more references