Reply to Quine's & Restall's Meaning Objection to logical pluralism
Introduction This post is a little different from some of my others. It started as a review of Greg Restall's paper "Carnap's Tolerance, Meaning, and Logical Pluralism", but a few factors convinced me to shift my focus towards replying to a specific point, rather than reviewing the paper as a whole. First, a great deal of what I had to say about the paper related to this particular argument against Carnapian logical pluralism (a view that's quite close to my own). I largely either agree or have no present thoughts on the rest of the paper. In particular, Restall aims to set out how his view (and that of Beall) is different from Carnap's. He does that quite successfully and I'm certainly more clear on the nature of his position as a result of reading the paper. Second, I had a paper R&R'd by a journal a few weeks back. The result was that my timetable was suddenly thrown off balance and I needed to find a way both to work on my current paper (a pap