|
16252
|
Metaphysics uses empty words, or just produces pseudo-statements [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
Since metaphysics doesn't want to assert analytic propositions, nor fall within the domain of physical science, it is compelled to employ words for which no criteria of application are specified, ..or else combine meaningful words..into pseudo-statements.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Elimination of Metaphysics by Analysis of Language [1959]), quoted by Tim Maudlin - The Metaphysics within Physics 2.4
|
|
A reaction:
A classic summary of the logical positivist rejection of metaphysics. I incline to treat metaphysics as within the domain of science, but at a level of generality so high that practising scientists become bewildered and give up.
|
|
10170
|
While true-in-a-model seems relative, true-in-all-models seems not to be [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
While truth can be defined in a relative way, as truth in one particular model, a non-relative notion of truth is implied, as truth in all models.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
[The article is actually discussing arithmetic] This idea strikes me as extremely important. True-in-all-models is usually taken to be tautological, but it does seem to give a more universal notion of truth. See semantic truth, Tarski, Davidson etc etc.
|
|
13342
|
Carnap defined consequence by contradiction, but this is unintuitive and changes with substitution [Tarski on Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
Carnap proposed to define consequence as 'sentence X follows from the sentences K iff the sentences K and the negation of X are contradictory', but 1) this is intuitively impossible, and 2) consequence would be changed by substituting objects.
|
|
From:
comment on Rudolph Carnap (The Logical Syntax of Language [1934], p.88-) by Alfred Tarski - The Concept of Logical Consequence p.414
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the first step in the ongoing explicit discussion of the nature of logical consequence, which is now seen by many as the central concept of logic. Tarski brings his new tool of 'satisfaction' to bear.
|
|
13251
|
Each person is free to build their own logic, just by specifying a syntax [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
In logic, there are no morals. Everyone is at liberty to build his own logic, i.e. his own form of language. All that is required is that he must state his methods clearly, and give syntactical rules instead of philosophical arguments.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (The Logical Syntax of Language [1934], §17), quoted by JC Beall / G Restall - Logical Pluralism 7.3
|
|
A reaction:
This is understandable, but strikes me as close to daft relativism. If I specify a silly logic, I presume its silliness will be obvious. By what criteria? I say the world dictates the true logic, but this is a minority view.
|
|
10175
|
Three types of variable in second-order logic, for objects, functions, and predicates/sets [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
In second-order logic there are three kinds of variables, for objects, for functions, and for predicates or sets.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
It is interesting that a predicate seems to be the same as a set, which begs rather a lot of questions. For those who dislike second-order logic, there seems nothing instrinsically wicked in having variables ranging over innumerable multi-order types.
|
|
10164
|
Peano Arithmetic can have three second-order axioms, plus '1' and 'successor' [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
A common formulation of Peano Arithmetic uses 2nd-order logic, the constant '1', and a one-place function 's' ('successor'). Three axioms then give '1 is not a successor', 'different numbers have different successors', and induction.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This is 'second-order' Peano Arithmetic, though it is at least as common to formulate in first-order terms (only quantifying over objects, not over properties - as is done here in the induction axiom). I like the use of '1' as basic instead of '0'!
|
|
10167
|
Structuralism emerged from abstract algebra, axioms, and set theory and its structures [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Structuralism has emerged from the development of abstract algebra (such as group theory), the creation of axiom systems, the introduction of set theory, and Bourbaki's encyclopaedic survey of set theoretic structures.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
In other words, mathematics has gradually risen from one level of abstraction to the next, so that mathematical entities like points and numbers receive less and less attention, with relationships becoming more prominent.
|
|
10169
|
Relativist Structuralism just stipulates one successful model as its arithmetic [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Relativist Structuralism simply picks one particular model of axiomatised arithmetic (i.e. one particular interpretation that satisfies the axioms), and then stipulates what the elements, functions and quantifiers refer to.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that a successful model can be offered, and it doesn't matter which one, like having any sort of aeroplane, as long as it flies. I don't find this approach congenial, though having a model is good. What is the essence of flight?
|
|
10179
|
There are 'particular' structures, and 'universal' structures (what the former have in common) [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
The term 'structure' has two uses in the literature, what can be called 'particular structures' (which are particular relational systems), but also what can be called 'universal structures' - what particular systems share, or what they instantiate.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a very helpful distinction, because it clarifies why (rather to my surprise) some structuralists turn out to be platonists in a new guise. Personal my interest in structuralism has been anti-platonist from the start.
|
|
10182
|
There are Formalist, Relativist, Universalist and Pattern structuralism [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are four main variants of structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics - formalist structuralism, relativist structuralism, universalist structuralism (with modal variants), and pattern structuralism.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §9)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure where Chihara's later book fits into this, though it is at the nominalist end of the spectrum. Shapiro and Resnik do patterns (the latter more loosely); Hellman does modal universalism; Quine does the relativist version. Dedekind?
|
|
10168
|
Formalist Structuralism says the ontology is vacuous, or formal, or inference relations [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Formalist Structuralism endorses structural methodology in mathematics, but rejects semantic and metaphysical problems as either meaningless, or purely formal, or as inference relations.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
[very compressed] I find the third option fairly congenial, certainly in preference to rather platonist accounts of structuralism. One still needs to distinguish the mathematical from the non-mathematical in the inference relations.
|
|
10178
|
Maybe we should talk of an infinity of 'possible' objects, to avoid arithmetic being vacuous [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is tempting to take a modal turn, and quantify over all possible objects, because if there are only a finite number of actual objects, then there are no models (of the right sort) for Peano Arithmetic, and arithmetic is vacuously true.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed; Geoffrey Hellman is the chief champion of this view] The article asks whether we are not still left with the puzzle of whether infinitely many objects are possible, instead of existent.
|
|
10177
|
Universalist Structuralism eliminates the base element, as a variable, which is then quantified out [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Universalist Structuralism is eliminativist about abstract objects, in a distinctive form. Instead of treating the base element (say '1') as an ambiguous referring expression (the Relativist approach), it is a variable which is quantified out.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
I am a temperamental eliminativist on this front (and most others) so this is tempting. I am also in love with the concept of a 'variable', which I take to be utterly fundamental to all conceptual thought, even in animals, and not just a trick of algebra.
|
|
8748
|
Logical positivists incorporated geometry into logicism, saying axioms are just definitions [Carnap, by Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
The logical positivists brought geometry into the fold of logicism. The axioms of, say, Euclidean geometry are simply definitions of primitive terms like 'point' and 'line'.
|
|
From:
report of Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950]) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 5.3
|
|
A reaction:
If the concept of 'line' is actually created by its definition, then we need to know exactly what (say) 'shortest' means. If we are merely describing a line, then our definition can be 'impredicative', using other accepted concepts.
|
|
13933
|
Existence questions are 'internal' (within a framework) or 'external' (concerning the whole framework) [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
We distinguish two kinds of existence questions: first, entities of a new kind within the framework; we call them 'internal questions'. Second, 'external questions', concerning the existence or reality of the system of entities as a whole.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely disposes of many ontological difficulties, but at the price of labelling most external questions as meaningless, so that the internal answers have very little commitment, and the external (big) questions are now banned. Not for me.
|
|
13935
|
We only accept 'things' within a language with formation, testing and acceptance rules [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
To accept the thing world means nothing more than to accept a certain form of language, in other words, to accept rules for forming statements and for testing, accepting, or rejecting them.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
If you derive your metaphysics from your language, then objects are linguistic conventions. But why do we accept conventions about objects?
|
|
14305
|
In the truth-functional account a burnt-up match was soluble because it never entered water [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a wooden match was completely burned up yesterday, and never placed in water at any time, is it not the case, therefore, that the match is soluble (in the truth-functional view). This follows just from the antecedent being false.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Testability and Meaning [1937], I.440), quoted by Stephen Mumford - Dispositions
|
|
A reaction:
This, along with Edgington's nice example of the conditional command (Idea ) seems conclusive against the truth-functional account. The only defence possible is some sort of pragmatic account about implicature.
|
|
13932
|
Empiricists tend to reject abstract entities, and to feel sympathy with nominalism [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
Empiricists are in general rather suspicious with respect to any kind of abstract entities like properties, classes, relations, numbers, propositions etc. They usually feel more sympathy with nominalists than with realists (in the medieval sense).
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious reason is that you can't have sense experiences of abstract entities. I like the question 'what are they made of?' rather than the question 'how can I experience them?'.
|
|
13937
|
New linguistic claims about entities are not true or false, but just expedient, fruitful or successful [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
The acceptance of new linguistic forms about entities cannot be judged as being either true or false because it is not an assertion. It can only be judged as being more or less expedient, fruitful, conducive to the aim for which the language is intended.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious problem seems to be that a complete pack of lies might be successful for a very long time, if it plugged a critical hole in a major theory. Is success judged financially? How do we judge success without mentioning truth?
|
|
13048
|
Good explications are exact, fruitful, simple and similar to the explicandum [Carnap, by Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
Carnap's four criteria for giving a good explication are similarity to the explicandum, exactness, fruitfulness and simplicity.
|
|
From:
report of Rudolph Carnap (Logical Foundations of Probability [1950], Ch.1) by Wesley Salmon - Four Decades of Scientific Explanation 0.1
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] Salmon's view is that this represents the old attitude, that the contribution of philosophy to explanation is the clarification of the key concepts. Carnap is, of course, a logical empiricist.
|
|
20653
|
Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are six 'reductive levels' in science: social groups, (multicellular) living things, cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles.
|
|
From:
report of H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim (Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis [1958]) by Peter Watson - Convergence 10 'Intro'
|
|
A reaction:
I have the impression that fields are seen as more fundamental that elementary particles. What is the status of the 'laws' that are supposed to govern these things? What is the status of space and time within this picture?
|