The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Truth
Abstract
This book presents a deflationary perspective called ‘minimalism’—a reaction against the traditional and widespread idea that the property of truth has some sort of underlying nature and that our problem as philosophers is to say what that nature is, to analyse truth either conceptually or substantively, to specify, at least roughly, the conditions necessary and sufficient for something to be true. In contrast, minimalism makes three correlated claims. First, the function of our concept of truth is merely to permit the formulation of certain generalizations (e.g. we are able to say ‘Every instance of “p→p” is true’, but without such a concept it is unclear how one might articulate the logical law whose instances are ‘dogs bark → dogs bark’, ‘Killing is wrong → killing is wrong’, etc.). Second, the meaning of the word ‘true’ derives, not from any explicit definition of the familiar kind, but rather from the fact that we are disposed to infer ‘It is true that ‘p’ from ‘p’, and vice versa. Third, such a mundane logical notion cannot play the fundamental role in philosophical theorizing to which it is often assigned within debates surrounding the nature of meaning, vagueness, normativity, reality, etc. Thus minimalism has ramifications throughout the subject. The book begins by articulating these claims and proceeds to refine and defend them in the course of responding to 39 potential objections (which are set out in the Contents).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Hall, M. B., & Kuhn, T. S. (1963) · The American Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1847040 · Cited by 7,479
Putnam, H. (1981) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625398 · Cited by 5,521
Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism
Millikan, R. G. (1984) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001 · Cited by 4,758
Fraassen, B. C. V. (1980) · doi:10.1093/0198244274.001.0001 · Cited by 4,682
Knowledge and the Flow of Information.
Alston, W. P., & Dretske, F. I. (1983) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184492 · Cited by 3,286
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
CARR, H. W. (1923) · Nature · doi:10.1038/111246a0 · Cited by 2,608
Donovan, R., & Philosophy Documentation Center (1983) · International Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.5840/ipq198323335 · Cited by 1,898
T. H., R. W. H. (1903) · Nature · doi:10.1038/068410a0 · Cited by 1,885
The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics
Tarski, A. (1944) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.2307/2102968 · Cited by 1,640
Fine, K. (1975) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/bf00485047 · Cited by 1,602
Cited by
Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness
Stoljar, D. (2006) · doi:10.1093/0195306589.001.0001 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Horwich, P.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 1998-12-03
- OpenAlex
- W4206703491
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 22.56
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Truth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/0198752237.001.0001
- The paper
- Horwich, P. (1998). Truth. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198752237.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.