CZ:Featured article/Current: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chunbum Park (→Battleship: Paula Deen) |
imported>Chunbum Park (→Paula Deen: Internal-external distinction) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== '''[[ | == '''[[Internal-external distinction]]''' == | ||
---- | ---- | ||
''' | The '''internal–external distinction''' is a distinction used in philosophy to divide an [[ontology]] into two parts: an internal part consisting of a linguistic framework and observations related to that framework, and an external part concerning practical questions about the utility of that framework. This division was introduced by [[Rudolf Carnap]] in his work ''Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology''.<ref name=Carnap/> It was subsequently criticized at length by [[Willard Quine|Willard v. O. Quine]] in a number of works,<ref name=Quine2/><ref name=Quine3/> and was considered for some time to have been discredited. However, recently a number of authors have come to the support of some or another version of Carnap's approach.<ref name=Yablo/><ref name=AllspectorKelly/><ref name=Bird/> | ||
''[[ | ''[[Internal-external distinction|.... (read more)]]'' | ||
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;" | {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;" | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="text-align: center;" | [[ | ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Internal-external distinction#References|notes]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 14:18, 29 June 2013
Internal-external distinction
The internal–external distinction is a distinction used in philosophy to divide an ontology into two parts: an internal part consisting of a linguistic framework and observations related to that framework, and an external part concerning practical questions about the utility of that framework. This division was introduced by Rudolf Carnap in his work Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.[1] It was subsequently criticized at length by Willard v. O. Quine in a number of works,[2][3] and was considered for some time to have been discredited. However, recently a number of authors have come to the support of some or another version of Carnap's approach.[4][5][6]
| notes |
|---|
|