30 ideas
3123 | Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints [Segal] |
Full Idea: Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5) |
3125 | Psychology studies the way rationality links desires and beliefs to causality [Segal] |
Full Idea: A person's desires and beliefs tend to cause what they tend to rationalise. This coordination of causality and rationalisation lies at the heart of psychology. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5.3) |
19480 | Process philosophy places the dynamic nature of being at the centre of our theories [Seibt] |
Full Idea: Process philosophy is based on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it. | |
From: Johanna Seibt (Process Philosophy [2012], Intro) | |
A reaction: Put like that, the chief ancestor of this approach would be Leibniz, even though his central idea concerns substances. Heraclitus is the most famous ancestor of Process Philosophy. Powers are dynamic, but powers of what? |
19479 | Reductionists identify processes by their 'owner', but tornadoes etc. are processes without owners [Seibt] |
Full Idea: On the reductionist view of processes, they are all 'owned' and we identify them by their owner (such as the murder of Caesar), ...but many processes (e.g. tornadoes, lightning bolts, the NY rush hour) lack a proper 'subject' altogether. | |
From: Johanna Seibt (Process Philosophy [2012], 2) | |
A reaction: This seems to be a fairly conclusive refutation of the view that processes are just objects changing their properties. |
19481 | Traditionally small things add up to processes, but quantum mechanics reverses this [Seibt] |
Full Idea: Instead of very small things (atoms) combining to produce standard processes (snowstorms), modern physics envisions very small processes (quantum phenomena) combining to produce standard things. | |
From: Johanna Seibt (Process Philosophy [2012], 4 (i)) | |
A reaction: Though electrons seem to be distinct things with a fixed set of properties, so this is not a clear point. Where do fields come into it? Beware of citing quantum mechanics in metaphysics! |
3105 | Is 'Hesperus = Phosphorus' metaphysically necessary, but not logically or epistemologically necessary? [Segal] |
Full Idea: It is metaphysically necessary that Hesperus is Phosphorus, but not logically necessary, since logical deduction could not reveal its truth, and it is not epistemologically necessary, as the ancient Greeks didn't know the identity. (Natural necessity?) | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.6) |
3106 | If claims of metaphysical necessity are based on conceivability, we should be cautious [Segal] |
Full Idea: Since conceivability is the chief method of assessing the claims of metaphysical necessity, I think such claims are incautious. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.6) |
22190 | If a theory is more informative it is less probable [Gorham] |
Full Idea: Popper's theory implies that more informative theories seem to be less probable. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 3) | |
A reaction: [On p.75 Gorham replies to this objection] The point is that to be more testable they must be more detailed. He's not wrong. Theories are meant to be general, so they sweep up the details. But they need precise generalities and specifics. |
22189 | Why abandon a theory if you don't have a better one? [Gorham] |
Full Idea: There is no sense in abandoning a successful theory if you have nothing to replace it with. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 2) | |
A reaction: This is also a problem for infererence to the best explanation. What to do if your best explanation is not very good? The simple message is do not rush to dump a theory when faced with an anomaly. |
22192 | Is Newton simpler with universal simultaneity, or Einstein simpler without absolute time? [Gorham] |
Full Idea: Is Newton's theory simpler than Einstein's, since there is only one relation of simultaneity in absolute time, or is Einstein's simpler because it dispenses with absolute time altogether? | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: A nice question, to which a good scientist might be willing to offer an answer. Since simultaneity is crucial but the existence of time is not, I would vote for Newton as the simpler. |
22194 | Structural Realism says mathematical structures persist after theory rejection [Gorham] |
Full Idea: Structural Realists say that modern science achieves a true or 'truer' account of the world only with respect to its mathematical structure rather than its intrinsic qualities or nature. The structure carries over to new theories. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: At first glance I am unconvinced that when an old theory is replaced it neverthess contains some sort of 'mathematical structure' which endures and is worth preserving. No doubt Worrall, French and co have examples. |
22195 | Structural Realists must show the mathematics is both crucial and separate [Gorham] |
Full Idea: Structural Realists must show that it is the mathematical aspects of the theories, not their content, that account for their success ….and that their structure and content can be clearly separated. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: Their approach certainly seems to rely on mathematical types of science, so it presumably fits biology, geology and even astronomy less well. |
22196 | For most scientists their concepts are not just useful, but are meant to be true and accurate [Gorham] |
Full Idea: The main difficulty with instrumentalism is its implausible account ot the meaning of theoretical claims and concepts. Most scientists take them to be straightforward attempts to describe the world. Most say they are useful because they are accurate. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: Instrumentalism is seen as a Pragmatist view, and Dewey is cited. |
22197 | Theories aren't just for organising present experience if they concern the past or future [Gorham] |
Full Idea: The strangeness of interpreting theories as mere tools for organising present experience is brought out clearly in sciences like cosmology and paleontology, which largely concern events in the remote past or future. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: Not conclusive. An anti-realist has to interpret those sciences in terms of the current observations that are available. |
22193 | Consilience makes the component sciences more likely [Gorham] |
Full Idea: The more unification and integration is found among the modern sciences, the less likely it seems it will have all been a dream. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: I believe this strongly. Ancient theories which were complex, wide ranging and false do not impress me. This is part of my coherence view of justification. |
3113 | The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth [Segal] |
Full Idea: The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) |
3112 | Folk psychology is ridiculously dualist in its assumptions [Segal] |
Full Idea: Commonsense psychology is a powerful explanatory theory, and largely correct, but it seems to be profoundly dualist, and treats minds as immaterial spirits which can transmigrate and exist disembodied. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) | |
A reaction: Fans of folk psychology tend to focus on central normal experience, but folk psychology also seems to range from quirky to barking mad. A 'premonition' is a widely accepted mental event. |
3108 | If 'water' has narrow content, it refers to both H2O and XYZ [Segal] |
Full Idea: My view is that the concepts of both the Earth person and the Twin Earth person refer to BOTH forms of diamonds or water (H2O and XYZ). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.7) | |
A reaction: Fair enough, though that seems to imply that my current concepts may actually refer to all sorts of items of which I am currently unaware. But that may be so. |
3110 | Humans are made of H2O, so 'twins' aren't actually feasible [Segal] |
Full Idea: Humans are largely made of H2O, so there could be no twin on Twin Earth, and (as Kuhn noted) nothing with a significantly different structure from H2O could be macroscopically very like water (but topaz and citrine will do). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.1) | |
A reaction: A small point, but one that appeals to essentialists like me (see under Natural Theory/Laws of Nature). We can't learn much metaphysics from impossible examples. |
3124 | Externalists can't assume old words refer to modern natural kinds [Segal] |
Full Idea: The question of what a pre-scientific term extends over is extremely difficult for a Putnam-style externalist to answer. …There seems no good reason to assume that they extend over natural kinds ('whale', 'cat', 'water'). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5.1) | |
A reaction: The assumption seems to be that they used to extend over descriptions, and now they extend over essences, or expert references. This can't be right. They have never changed, but now contain fewer errors. |
3111 | Externalism can't explain concepts that have no reference [Segal] |
Full Idea: Empty terms and concepts provide the largest problem for the externalist thesis of the world dependence of concepts. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) | |
A reaction: A speculative concept could then become a reality (e.g. an invention). The solution seems to be to say that there is an internal and an external component to most concepts. |
3109 | If content is external, so are beliefs and desires [Segal] |
Full Idea: If we accept Putnam's externalist conclusion about the meaning of a word, it is a short step to a similar conclusion about the contents of the twins' beliefs, desires and so on. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.1) | |
A reaction: This is the key step which has launched a whole new externalist view of the nature of the mind. It is one thing to say that I don't quite know what my words mean, another that I don't know my own beliefs. |
3116 | Maybe experts fix content, not ordinary users [Segal] |
Full Idea: Putnam and Burge claim that there could be two words that a misinformed subject uses to express different concepts, but that express just one concept of the experts. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 3.2) | |
A reaction: This pushes the concept outside the mind of the user, which leaves an ontological problem of what concepts are made of, how you individuate them, and where they are located. |
3117 | Concepts can survive a big change in extension [Segal] |
Full Idea: We need to think of concepts as organic entities that can persist through changes of extension. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 3.3) | |
A reaction: This would be 'organic' in the sense of modifying and growing. This is exactly right, and the interesting problem becomes the extreme cases, where an individual stretches a concept a long way. |
3103 | Maybe content involves relations to a language community [Segal] |
Full Idea: It has been argued (e.g. by Tyler Burge) that certain relations to other language users are determinants of content. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4) | |
A reaction: Burge's idea (with Wittgenstein behind him) strikes me as plausible (more plausible than water and elms determining the content). Our concepts actually shift during conversations. |
3104 | Must we relate to some diamonds to understand them? [Segal] |
Full Idea: Is a relationship with diamonds necessary for having a concept of diamonds? | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4) | |
A reaction: Probably not, given that I have a concept of kryptonite, and that I can invent my own concepts. Suppose I was brought up to believe that diamonds are a myth? |
3121 | If content is narrow, my perfect twin shares my concepts [Segal] |
Full Idea: To say that contents of my belief are narrow is to say that they are intrinsic to me, hence that any perfect twin of mine would have beliefs with the same contents. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5) | |
A reaction: I personally find this more congenial than externalism. If my twin and I studied chemistry, we would reach identical conclusions about water, as long as we remained perfect twins. |
3118 | If thoughts ARE causal, we can't explain how they cause things [Segal] |
Full Idea: If we identify a psychological property with its causal role then we lose the obvious explanation of why the event has the causal role that it has. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 4.1) | |
A reaction: This pinpoints very nicely one of the biggest errors in modern philosophy. There are good naturalistic reasons to reduce everything to causal role, but there is a deeper layer. Essences! |
3119 | Even 'mass' cannot be defined in causal terms [Segal] |
Full Idea: We can't define mass in terms of its causal powers because massive objects do different things in different physical systems. …What an object (or concept) with a given property does depends on what it interacts with. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 4.1) | |
A reaction: This leaves an epistemological problem, that we believe in mass, but can only get at it within a particular gravitational or inertial system. Don't give up on ontology at this point. |
22198 | Aristotelian physics has circular celestial motion and linear earthly motion [Gorham] |
Full Idea: Aristotelian physics assumed that celestial motion is naturally circular and eternal while terrestrial motion is naturally toward the center of the earth and final. | |
From: Geoffrey Gorham (Philosophy of Science [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: The overthrow of this by Galileo and then Newton may have been the most dramatic revolution of the new science. It opened up the possibility of universal laws of physics. |