|
6855
|
Interesting philosophers hardly every give you explicitly valid arguments [Martin,M]
|
|
Full Idea:
Notice that very few philosophers - certainly almost none of the ones who are interesting to read - give you explicitly valid arguments.
|
|
From:
Michael Martin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.134)
|
|
A reaction:
I never thought that was going to happen in philosophy. What I do get is, firstly, lots of interesting reasons for holding beliefs, and a conviction that good beliefs need good reasons, and, secondly, a really coherent view of the world.
|
|
12801
|
Coherentists seek relations among beliefs that are simple, conservative and explanatory [Foley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Coherentists try to provide an explication of epistemic rationality in terms of a set of deductive and probabilistic relations among beliefs and properties such as simplicity, conservativeness, and explanatory power.
|
|
From:
Richard Foley (Justified Belief as Responsible Belief [2005], p.317)
|
|
A reaction:
I have always like the coherentist view of justification, and now I see that this has led me to the question of explanation, which in turn has led me to essentialism. It's all coming together. Watch this space. 'Explanatory' is the key to everything!
|
|
6856
|
Valid arguments can be rejected by challenging the premises or presuppositions [Martin,M]
|
|
Full Idea:
Putting forward a valid argument isn't necessarily going to succeed in getting someone to see things your way, because if they don't accept the conclusion, they ask which premises they should reject, or whether an illegitimate assumption is being made.
|
|
From:
Michael Martin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.136)
|
|
A reaction:
Valid arguments are still vital. It is just that good philosophers realise the problem noted here, and spend huge stretches of discussion on establishing acceptance of premises, and showing that there are no dodgy presuppositions.
|
|
9469
|
Substitutional existential quantifier may explain the existence of linguistic entities [Parsons,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
I argue (against Quine) that the existential quantifier substitutionally interpreted has a genuine claim to express a concept of existence, which may give the best account of linguistic abstract entities such as propositions, attributes, and classes.
|
|
From:
Charles Parsons (A Plea for Substitutional Quantification [1971], p.156)
|
|
A reaction:
Intuitively I have my doubts about this, since the whole thing sounds like a verbal and conventional game, rather than anything with a proper ontology. Ruth Marcus and Quine disagree over this one.
|
|
17447
|
Parsons says counting is tagging as first, second, third..., and converting the last to a cardinal [Parsons,C, by Heck]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Parsons's demonstrative model of counting, '1' means the first, and counting says 'the first, the second, the third', where one is supposed to 'tag' each object exactly once, and report how many by converting the last ordinal into a cardinal.
|
|
From:
report of Charles Parsons (Frege's Theory of Numbers [1965]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds good. Counting seems to rely on that fact that numbers can be both ordinals and cardinals. You don't 'convert' at the end, though, because all the way you mean 'this cardinality in this order'.
|
|
13417
|
If a mathematical structure is rejected from a physical theory, it retains its mathematical status [Parsons,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
If experience shows that some aspect of the physical world fails to instantiate a certain mathematical structure, one will modify the theory by sustituting a different structure, while the original structure doesn't lose its status as part of mathematics.
|
|
From:
Charles Parsons (Review of Tait 'Provenance of Pure Reason' [2009], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be a beautifully simple and powerful objection to the Quinean idea that mathematics somehow only gets its authority from physics. It looked like a daft view to begin with, of course.
|
|
12800
|
Externalists want to understand knowledge, Internalists want to understand justification [Foley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Externalists are principally interested in understanding what knowledge is, ..while internalists, by contrast, are principally interested in explicating a sense of justification ..from one's own perspective.
|
|
From:
Richard Foley (Justified Belief as Responsible Belief [2005], p.314)
|
|
A reaction:
I find this very helpful, since I have a strong bias towards internalism (with a social dimension), and I see now that it is because I am more interested in what a (good) justification is than what some entity in reality called 'knowledge' consists of.
|
|
12802
|
We aren't directly pragmatic about belief, but pragmatic about the deliberation which precedes it [Foley]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is rare for pragmatic considerations to influence the rationality of our beliefs in the crass, direct way that Pascal's Wager envisions. Instead, they determine the direction and shape of our investigative and deliberative projects and practices.
|
|
From:
Richard Foley (Justified Belief as Responsible Belief [2005], p.320)
|
|
A reaction:
[See Idea 6684 for Pascal's Wager] Foley is evidently a full-blown pragmatist (which is bad), but this is nicely put. We can't deny the importance of the amount of effort put into an enquiry. Maybe it is an epistemic duty, rather than a means to an end.
|