Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Oxford Studies in Metaphysicsvolume 6$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Karen Bennett and Dean W. Zimmerman

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199603039

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603039.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 17 November 2018

Response to Eklund 1

Response to Eklund 1

Chapter:
(p.173) 5. Response to Eklund1
Source:
Oxford Studies in Metaphysics
Author(s):

Elizabeth Barnes

J. Robert G. Williams

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603039.003.0005

This chapter defends the account of metaphysical indeterminacy of Barnes and Williams against Eklund's objections.

Keywords:   indeterminacy, vagueness, logic, classical logic, bivalence

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .