Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim, Lord Kelvin (Wm Thomson) and Peter Klein

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers

---

7 ideas

2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 6. Coherence

8833	Why should we prefer coherent beliefs? [Klein,P]
	Full Idea: A key question for a coherentist is, why should he or she adopt a coherent set of beliefs rather than an incoherent set?
	From: Peter Klein (Infinitism solution to regress problem [2005], 'Step 1')
	A reaction: The point of the question is that the coherentist may have to revert to other criteria in answering it. One could equally ask, why should I believe in tables just because I vividly experience them? Or, why believe 2+2=4, just because it is obvious?

13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 2. Justification Challenges / a. Agrippa's trilemma

8834	Infinitism avoids a regress, circularity or arbitrariness, by saying warrant just increases [Klein,P]
	Full Idea: Infinitism can solve the regress problem, because it endorses a warrant-emergent form of reasoning in which warrant increases as the series of reasons lengthens. The theory can avoid both circularity and arbitrariness.
	From: Peter Klein (Infinitism solution to regress problem [2005], 'Step 2')
	A reaction: It nicely avoids arbitrariness by offering a reason for absolutely every belief. I think the way to go may to combine individual Infinitism with a social account of where to set the bar of acceptable justification.

13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / e. Pro-foundations

8838	If justification is endless, no link in the chain is ultimately justified [Ginet on Klein,P]
	Full Idea: An endless chain of inferential justifications can never ultimately explain why any link in the chain is justified.
	From: comment on Peter Klein (Infinitism solution to regress problem [2005]) by Carl Ginet - Infinitism not solution to regress problem p.148
	A reaction: This strikes me as a mere yearning for foundations. I don't see sense-experience or the natural light of human reason (or the word of God, for that matter) as in any way 'ultimate'. It's all evidence to be evaluated.

13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / a. Coherence as justification

8839	Reasons acquire warrant through being part of a lengthening series [Klein,P]
	Full Idea: The infinitist holds that finding a reason, and then another reason for that reason, places it at the beginning of a series where each gains warrant as part of the series. ..Rational credibility increases as the series lengthens.
	From: Peter Klein (Infinitism solution to regress problem [2005], p.137)
	A reaction: A striking problem here for Klein is the status of the first reason, prior to it being supported by a series. Surprisingly, it seems that it would not yet be a justification. Coherence accounts have the same problem, if coherence is the only criterion.

14. Science / B. Scientific Theories / 1. Scientific Theory

22363	You have only begun to do real science when you can express it in numbers [Kelvin]
	Full Idea: When you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.
	From: Lord Kelvin (Wm Thomson) (works [1881]), quoted by Reiss,J/Spreger,J - Scientific Objectivity 4.1
	A reaction: [Popular Lectures 1 p.73] Clearly the writer is a physicist! Astronomers discover objects, geologists discover structures, biologists reveal mechanisms.

14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / j. Explanations by reduction

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?

27. Natural Reality / A. Classical Physics / 2. Thermodynamics / a. Energy

20644	Energy has progressed from a mere formula, to a principle pervading all nature [Kelvin]
	Full Idea: The name 'energy', first used by Thomas Young, has come into use after it was raised from a mere formula of mathematical dynamics to become a principle pervading all nature, and guiding every field of science.
	From: Lord Kelvin (Wm Thomson) (works [1881]), quoted by Peter Watson - Convergence 01 'Principle'
	A reaction: [bit compressed] As far as I can see energy behaves exactly as if it were a substance, like water conserved in rainfalls, and yet it isn't a stuff, and seems to result from a process of abstraction. I take it to be one of the biggest mysteries in physics.