Yes, just as the fact that germ theory explained disease and its spread is excellent evidence of the existence of germs.

Plato's argument for positing abstract entities is not as strong as Quine's. But they both are the same kind of argument.

Well, we may, of course, ascribe properties to imaginary things, but since those have to be imaginary properties. it does follow from the fact that N has a property that it exists. Whether that argument is of use, I cannot tell. But that argument, whether or not it is of use, is certainly a valid argument. In fact, in the predicate calculus, it is called, the rule of existential generalization. You can check it here:

Tutorial- Existential Generalization

Well, we may, of course, ascribe properties to imaginary things, but since those have to be imaginary properties. it does follow from the fact that N has a property that it exists. Whether that argument is of use, I cannot tell. But that argument, whether or not it is of use, is certainly a valid argument. In fact, in the predicate calculus, it is called, the rule of existential generalization. You can check it here:

Tutorial- Existential Generalization

Well, we may, of course, ascribe properties to imaginary things, but since those have to be imaginary properties. it does follow from the fact that N has a property that it exists. Whether that argument is of use, I cannot tell. But that argument, whether or not it is of use, is certainly a valid argument. In fact, in the predicate calculus, it is called, the rule of existential generalization. You can check it here:

Tutorial- Existential Generalization

Like the best explanation for kids being scared when their dad plays at being a monster is that their dad is a monster.Quine only suggests realism about the mathematical objects convenient for expressing statements about physics. I dont see that as reasonable at all.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 11:44 AM ----------

Fa -> (some x)(Fx) is a tautology but, (some x)(Fx) does not say a exists. Rather it says there is some existent x which has the property F, ie. 'F exists'.

Fa -> (some G)(Ga) is also a tautology and, (some G)(Ga) does say 'a exists'.

Fa -> (F exists & a exists).

Santa wears black boots, is true within the fiction/myth/story of Santa.
Santa wears black boots, is false in reality..because Santa does not exist in reality.

a exists =df (some F)(Fa). To exist is to have some property.

No, in the monster case that is not the best explanation, but in the germ case, it is the best explanation.

But the monster case is at least as good an analogy as the germs. One has a handful of mice, some sick and some healthy, examining the blood, we find some stuff in the blood of the sick mice that isn't in the blood of the healthy mice, so we test the hypothesis that. . . etc, etc, etc. How does the germ case resemble the Quine Putnam arguments?

abstract objects are postulated to explain mathematical phenomena.

And how is this any more respectable than positing abstract entities to explain fiction?

There are no fictional phenomena.

The fictional character Scooby Doo is a fictional character because the character Scooby Doo (which does exist) is not based on a real live talking dog.

Scooby Doo (as opposed to the character Scooby Doo), however, does not exist. If you look to the real world in search of properties to show otherwise, you will not find any. You will find no real live talking dog.

But, we don't deny the existence of cartoons, nor do we deny the existence of the characters (in so much as they are characters) that are depicted in the cartoons.

So, the character Scooby Doo does exist, as it has properties. It does not wear a collar around his neck, as no real live collar can in reality go around the neck of a cartoon character, as there in fact is no neck at all but rather drawings (for example) depicted as a neck.

"Scooby Doo" when spoken is often shorthand for "the character Scooby Doo," and the character Scooby Doo exists, but never is it true that Scooby Doo exists.

You placed a comma between "character" and "Scooby", and doing so complicates matters. I am making a distinction between "Scooby Doo" and "The Scooby Doo character", yet when you say, "The fictional character, Scooby Doo," you are implying that Scooby Doo (as opposed to the Scooby Doo character) is a fictional character, but Scooby Doo is not a fictional character. The Scooby Doo character is a fictional character.

So, how can I possibly say, "Scooby Doo is not a fictional character" with a straight face? It's because I'm not saying "Scooby Doo" in shorthand for "The Scooby Doo character." Of Course Scooby Doo does not exist, and of course there is a Scooby Doo character ... kids watch him all the time.

Remember, one exists, and one doesn't. The Scooby Doo character most certainly exists, but there is no actual Scooby Doo. If there were, we would hear him.

You placed a comma between "character" and "Scooby", and doing so complicates matters. I am making a distinction between "Scooby Doo" and "The Scooby Doo character", yet when you say, "The fictional character, Scooby Doo," you are implying that Scooby Doo (as opposed to the Scooby Doo character) is a fictional character, but Scooby Doo is not a fictional character. The Scooby Doo character is a fictional character.

So, how can I possibly say, "Scooby Doo is not a fictional character" with a straight face? It's because I'm not saying "Scooby Doo" in shorthand for "The Scooby Doo character." Of Course Scooby Doo does not exist, and of course there is a Scooby Doo character ... kids watch him all the time.

Remember, one exists, and one doesn't. The Scooby Doo character most certainly exists, but there is no actual Scooby Doo. If there were, we would hear him.

:eek:

What mysitfies me is how you can say witha straight face what I have highlighted in red.
Zetherin is correct to say that Scooby Doo is a ficitonal character.

Of course, one could come up with a story in which a fictional character is a character in the story.Woody Allen's great movie The Purple Rose of Cairo is a nice example.

The Scooby Doo character exists, but it's a fictional character because Scooby Doo does not exist.

Lol. No, I am not saying that. I just thought it might be easier to use quotes because they show up a bit better than italics.

Our mental mind-dependent conceptions do most certainly exist, but what cartoonists create does exist, and it exists in the real world, just like drawings exist. What is depicted in a drawing may not exist, but the drawing itself exists. Same with cartoon characters. The actual character is created by talented people, and although the character Scooby Doo exists, that's not to say there is a corresponding talking, breathing, and brave (let's not forget brave--I don't care what they say!) dog.

The character Scooby Doo has properties, but we have to be careful when say what they are. Recall, we often speak in shorthand, so don't be fooled into thinking that one property of the character Scooby Doo is that he speaks as humans do, for cartoon characters can't literally speak, but there still exists a fictional character Scooby Doo depicted as a dog that can talk.

1.) Scooby Doo
2.) The concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo
3.) The fictional character Scooby Doo
4.) Every drawing, painting, movie, t.v. show, or otherwise representation of the fictional character Scooby Doo

(1) most certainly does not exist. (2) and (4) most certainly do exist.

Why would you think (3) exists?

Lol. No, I am not saying that. I just thought it might be easier to use quotes because they show up a bit better than italics.

Our mental mind-dependent conceptions do most certainly exist, but what cartoonists create does exist, and it exists in the real world, just like drawings exist. What is depicted in a drawing may not exist, but the drawing itself exists. Same with cartoon characters. The actual character is created by talented people, and although the character Scooby Doo exists, that's not to say there is a corresponding talking, breathing, and brave (let's not forget brave--I don't care what they say!) dog.

The character Scooby Doo has properties, but we have to be careful when say what they are. Recall, we often speak in shorthand, so don't be fooled into thinking that one property of the character Scooby Doo is that he speaks as humans do, for cartoon characters can't literally speak, but there still exists a fictional character Scooby Doo depicted as a dog that can talk.

The character Scooby Doo has properties, but we have to be careful when say what they are..