Abstract

This chapter is an attempt to elucidate the ‘just is’-operator. It considers the question of what the truth or falsity of a ‘just is’-statement consists in, and develops an epistemology for ‘just is’-statements—that is, an account of the sorts of considerations that might ground their acceptance or rejection. (The idea, in broad outline, is that the decision to accept a particular ‘just is’-statement should be determined by the statement’s ability to combine with the rest of one’s theorizing to deliver a fruitful tool for scientific or philosophical inquiry.) The chapter also establishes connections between the ‘just is’-operator and four other notions: metaphysical possibility, inconsistency, sameness of truth-conditions and explanatory closure.