14 ideas
13007 | Archimedes defined a straight line as the shortest distance between two points [Archimedes, by Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Archimedes gave a sort of definition of 'straight line' when he said it is the shortest line between two points. | |
From: report of Archimedes (fragments/reports [c.240 BCE]) by Gottfried Leibniz - New Essays on Human Understanding 4.13 | |
A reaction: Commentators observe that this reduces the purity of the original Euclidean axioms, because it involves distance and measurement, which are absent from the purest geometry. |
15148 | Powers give explanations, without being necessary for some class membership [Chakravartty] |
Full Idea: Powers explain behaviours regardless of whether they are necessary for membership in a particular class of things. | |
From: Anjan Chakravarrty (Inessential Aristotle: Powers without Essences [2012], 3) | |
A reaction: This seems right, and is important for driving a wedge between powers and essences. If there are essences, they are not simply some bunch of powers. |
15145 | A kind essence is the necessary and sufficient properties for membership of a class [Chakravartty] |
Full Idea: The modern concept of a kind essence is a set of intrinsic properties that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for the membership of something in a class of things, or 'kind'. | |
From: Anjan Chakravarrty (Inessential Aristotle: Powers without Essences [2012], 2) | |
A reaction: I am always struck by the problem that the kind itself is constructed from the individuals, so circularity always seems to loom. |
15147 | Cluster kinds are explained simply by sharing some properties, not by an 'essence' [Chakravartty] |
Full Idea: The fact that members of some cluster kinds are subjects of causal generalizations reflects the degree to which they share causally efficacious properties, not the fact that they may be composed of essence kinds per se. | |
From: Anjan Chakravarrty (Inessential Aristotle: Powers without Essences [2012], 2) | |
A reaction: I think this is right. I am a fan of individual essences, but not of kind essences. I take kinds, and kind explanations, to be straightforward inductive generalisations from individuals. Extreme stabilities give the illusion of a kind essence. |
19718 | Indefeasibility does not imply infallibility [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Infallibility does not follow from indefeasibility. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Significance') | |
A reaction: If very little evidence exists then this could clearly be the case. It is especially true of historical and archaeological evidence. |
19717 | Can a defeater itself be defeated? [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Can the original justification of a belief be regained through a successful defeat of a defeater? | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Defeater-Defs') | |
A reaction: [Jäger 2005 addresses this] I would have thought the answer is yes. I aspire to coherent justifications, so I don't see justifications as a chain of defeat and counter-defeat, but as collective groups of support and challenge. |
19716 | Simple reliabilism can't cope with defeaters of reliably produced beliefs [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: An unmodified reliabilism does not accommodate defeaters, and surely there can be defeaters against reliably produced beliefs? | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Defeaters') | |
A reaction: [He cites Bonjour 1980] Reliabilism has plenty of problems anyway, since a generally reliable process can obviously occasionally produce a bad result. 20:20 vision is not perfect vision. Internalist seem to like defeaters. |
19715 | You can 'rebut' previous beliefs, 'undercut' the power of evidence, or 'reason-defeat' the truth [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: There are 'rebutting' defeaters against the truth of a previously justified belief, 'undercutting' defeaters against the power of the evidence, and 'reason-defeating' defeaters against the truth of the reason for the belief. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'How') | |
A reaction: That is (I think) that you can defeat the background, the likelihood, or the truth. He cites Pollock 1986, and implies that these are standard distinctions about defeaters. |
19713 | Defeasibility theory needs to exclude defeaters which are true but misleading [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Advocates of the defeasibility theory have tried to exclude true pieces of information that are misleading defeaters. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'What') | |
A reaction: He gives as an example the genuine news of a claim that the suspect has a twin. |
19714 | Knowledge requires that there are no facts which would defeat its justification [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: The 'defeasibility theory' of knowledge claims that knowledge is only present if there are no facts that - if they were known - would be genuine defeaters of the relevant justification. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'What') | |
A reaction: Something not right here. A genuine defeater would ensure the proposition was false, so it would simply fail the truth test. So we need a 'defeater' for a truth, which must therefore by definition be misleading. Many qualifications have to be invoked. |
19719 | 'Moderate' foundationalism has basic justification which is defeasible [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Theories that combine basic justification with the defeasibility of this justification are referred to as 'moderate' foundationalism. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Significance') | |
A reaction: I could be more sympathetic to this sort of foundationalism. But it begins to sound more like Neurath's boat (see Quine) than like Descartes' metaphor of building foundations. |
15144 | Explanation of causal phenomena concerns essential kinds - but also lack of them [Chakravartty] |
Full Idea: Scientific practices such as prediction and explanation regarding causal phenomena are concerned not merely with kinds having essences, but also with kinds lacking them. | |
From: Anjan Chakravarrty (Inessential Aristotle: Powers without Essences [2012], 1) | |
A reaction: Not quite clear what he has in mind, but explanation should certainly involve a coherent picture, and not just the citation of some underlying causal mechanism. |
15146 | Some kinds, such as electrons, have essences, but 'cluster kinds' do not [Chakravartty] |
Full Idea: Many of the kinds we theorize about and experiment on today simply do not have essences. We can distinguish 'essence kinds', such as electrons, and 'cluster kinds', such as biological species. | |
From: Anjan Chakravarrty (Inessential Aristotle: Powers without Essences [2012], 2) | |
A reaction: This is an important point for essentialists. He offers a strict criterion, in Idea 15145, for mind membership, but we might allow species to have essences by just relaxing the criteria a bit, and acknowledging some vagueness, especially over time. |
15151 | Many causal laws do not refer to kinds, but only to properties [Chakravartty] |
Full Idea: Causal laws often do not make reference to kinds of objects at all, but rather summarize relations between quantitative, causally efficacious properties of objects. | |
From: Anjan Chakravarrty (Inessential Aristotle: Powers without Essences [2012], 3) | |
A reaction: This would only be a serious challenge if it was not possible to translate talk of properties into talk of kinds, and vice versa. |