This may perhaps represent a weak argument to a logician but much of science has advanced through loose ends, unexplained observations and so forth.
For these reasons, logicians rightly reject the power of completeness.
This is what inductive logicians would call all strategies for enhancing analogical reasoning.
So the fit between the practices of logicians and formal semanticists with predicate-argument structure and the neural facts is not quite perfect.
Of course, logicians are not interested in how answers to questions are derived in practice.
The collaboration of logicians and computer scientists has been fruitful and many works and results have ensued.
But in general, the interaction between modalities, syntax and names has been of interest to logicians for quite some time.
Such questions cannot be settled by the logicians' insistence on realism and/or intentionality.
