The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Truth and Objectivity
Abstract
Inflating deflationism minimal truth, internal realism and superassertibility convergence and cognitive command appendix - the euthyphro contrast cognitive command and the theoreticity of observation realism and the best explanation of belief quietism appendix - on an argument against the coherence of minimalism about meaning.
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
Cited by
Short, T. L. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498350 · Cited by 675
From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis
Jackson, F. (2000) · doi:10.1093/0198250614.001.0001 · Cited by 560
Deflationist Views of Meaning and Content
FIELD, H. (1994) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/103.411.249 · Cited by 489
Meta‐Ethics and The Problem of Creeping Minimalism
Dreier, J. (2004) · Philosophical Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2004.00019.x · Cited by 431
The emotional basis of moral judgments
Prinz, J. (2006) · Philosophical Explorations · doi:10.1080/13869790500492466 · Cited by 391
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, C.
- Venue
- Harvard University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Harvard University Press
- Published
- 2009-06-30
- OpenAlex
- W2064392748
- Cited by
- 1,437
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.66
- 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 and Objectivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/j.ctv1rr6cwg
- The paper
- Wright, C. (2009). Truth and Objectivity. Harvard University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1rr6cwg
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.
