Bait and switch philosophy
Many philosophers employ an intellectual division of labour. Philosophy tells us what the truth conditions of various philosophically interesting sentences are. For example, atomic sentences containing numerals are sentences containing singular terms putatively referring to numbers; sentences about what could be are sentences quantifying over possible worlds and so on. Some discipline outside of philosophy (such as mathematics or common sense) tells us that certain of these sentences are true. The purported result is that such philosophically controversial entities as numbers and possible worlds have been shown to exist. I criticize this ‘twin-track strategy’ and try to show that the two components conflict rather than complement each other