The Very Idea of Truth by Convention
This chapter answers various influential arguments against truth by convention, in general, and logical conventionalism, in particular. The first argument discussed claims that the contingency of our linguistic conventions is incompatible with the necessity of logical truth. The second claims that while conventions can be used to determine the content of a sentence, they cannot possibly make that content be the case (I call this “the master argument” against conventionalism, because of its influence). The third argument discussed is Quine’s famous argument against logical conventionalism. The fourth is a variation on Quinean themes, related to the later Wittgenstein’s radical conventionalism and Dummett’s discussions of Wittgenstein’s views. The fifth and final objection is Williamson’s argument against understanding-assent links. The chapter’s discussion shows that each of these arguments against conventionalism has decisive failings.