32 ideas
14611 | Metaphysics should avoid talk of past, present or future [Smart] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics should not be cosmically parochial. It should eschew tensed languages. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (The Tenseless Theory of Time [2008], 1) | |
A reaction: This is quite an engaging reason to be an eternalist (or B-theorist) about time. Presumably we can still believe in tensed time, as long as we recognise that metaphysics itself is a timeless subject. |
17070 | Coherence is consilience, simplicity, analogy, and fitting into a web of belief [Smart] |
Full Idea: I shall make use of the admittedly imprecise notions of consilience, simplicity, analogy and fitting into a web of belief, or in short of 'coherence'. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.06) | |
A reaction: Coherence sounds like a family of tests, rather than a single unified concept. I still like coherence, though. |
17072 | We need comprehensiveness, as well as self-coherence [Smart] |
Full Idea: Not mere self-coherence, but comprehensiveness belongs to the notion of coherence. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.07) |
19504 | My modus ponens might be your modus tollens [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: One philosopher's modus ponens is another philosopher's modus tollens. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 3.§2) | |
A reaction: [Anyone know the originator of this nice thought?] You say A is true, and A proves B, so B is true. I reply that if A proves something as daft as B, then so much the worse for A. Ain't it the truth? |
19503 | An improbable lottery win can occur in a nearby possible world [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: Low probability events such as lottery wins can occur in nearby possible worlds. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 2.n2) | |
A reaction: This seems to ruin any chance of mapping probabilities and counterfactuals in the neat model of nested possible worlds (like an onion). [Lewis must have thought of this, surely? - postcards, please] |
19505 | Moore begs the question, or just offers another view, or uses 'know' wrongly [Pritchard,D, by PG] |
Full Idea: The three main objections to Moore's common-sense refutation of scepticism is that it either begs the question, or it just offers a rival view instead of a refutation, or it uses 'know' in a conversationally inappropriate way. | |
From: report of Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 3.§2) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: [I deserve applause for summarising two pages of Pritchard's wordy stuff so neatly] |
19499 | We can have evidence for seeing a zebra, but no evidence for what is entailed by that [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: The closure principle forces us to regard Zula as knowing that what she is looking at is not a cleverly disguised mule, and yet she doesn't appear to have any supporting evidence for this knowledge. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 2.§3) | |
A reaction: [Zula observes a zebra in the zoo] Entailment is a different type of justification from perception. If we add fallibilism to the mix, then fallibility can increase as we pursue a string of entailments. But proper logic, of course, should not be fallible. |
19500 | Favouring: an entailment will give better support for the first belief than reason to deny the second [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: The Favouring Principle says that if S knows two things, and that the first entails the second, then S has better evidence in support of her belief in the first than she has for denying the second. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 2.§3) | |
A reaction: [his version is full of Greek letters, but who wants that stuff?] Pritchard concludes that if you believe in the closure principle then you should deny the favouring principle. |
19502 | Maybe knowledge just needs relevant discriminations among contrasting cases [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: According to the 'contrastivist' proposal knowledge is to be understood as essentially involving discrimination, such that knowing a proposition boils down to having the relevant discriminatory capacities. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 2.§6) | |
A reaction: Pritchard says this isn't enough, and we must also to be aware of supporting favouring evidence. I would focus on the concept of coherence, even for simple perceptual knowledge. If I see a hawk in England, that's fine. What if I 'see' a vulture? |
19498 | Epistemic internalism usually says justification must be accessible by reflection [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: Typically, internal epistemic conditions are characterised in terms of a reflective access requirement. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 1.§6) | |
A reaction: If your justification is straightforwardly visual, it is unclear what the difference would be between seeing the thing and having reflective access to the seeing. |
19506 | Externalism is better than internalism in dealing with radical scepticism [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: Standard epistemic internalism faces an uphill struggle when it comes to dealing with radical scepticism, which points in favour of epistemic externalist neo-Mooreanism. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 3.§3) | |
A reaction: I incline towards internalism. I deal with scepticism by being a fallibilist, and adding 'but you never know' to every knowledge claim, and then getting on with life. |
19496 | Disjunctivism says perceptual justification must be both factual and known by the agent [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: Slogan for disjunctivism: perceptual knowledge is paradigmatically constituted by a true belief whose epistemic support is both factive (i.e. it entails the truth of the propositions believed) and reflectively accessible to the agent. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], Intro) | |
A reaction: I'm not a fan of externalism, but it could be that the factive bit achieves the knowledge, and then being able to use and answer for that knowledge may just be a bonus, and not an essential ingredient. |
19497 | Metaphysical disjunctivism says normal perceptions and hallucinations are different experiences [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: Metaphysical disjunctivists hold that veridical perceptual experiences are not essentially the same as the experiences involved in corresponding cases involving illusion and (especially) hallucination. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 1.§4) | |
A reaction: Metaphysical disjunctivism concerns what the experiences are; epistemological justification concerns the criteria of justification. I think. I wish Pritchard would spell things out more clearly. Indeed, I wish all philosophers would. |
17073 | I simply reject evidence, if it is totally contrary to my web of belief [Smart] |
Full Idea: The simplest way of fitting the putative observed phenomena of telepathy or clairvoyance into my web of belief is to refuse to take them at face value. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.07-8) | |
A reaction: Love it. It is very disconcerting for the sceptical naturalist to be faced with adamant claims that the paranormal has occurred, but my response is exactly the same as Smart's. I reject the reports, no matter how passionately they are asserted. |
19495 | Epistemic externalism struggles to capture the idea of epistemic responsibility [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: A fundamental difficulty for epistemic externalist positions is that it is hard on this view to capture any adequate notion of epistemic responsibility. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], Intro) | |
A reaction: He never explains the 'responsibility', but I presume that would be like an expert witness in court, vouching for their knowledge. |
19501 | We assess error against background knowledge, but that is just what radical scepticism challenges [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: When faced with an error-possibility we can appeal to background knowledge, as long as the error-possibility does not call into question this background knowledge. The same is not true when we focus on the radical sceptical hypothesis. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 2.§5) | |
A reaction: [reworded] Doubting everything simultaneously just looks like a mad project. If you doubt linguistic meaning, you can't even express your doubts. |
19507 | Radical scepticism is merely raised, and is not a response to worrying evidence [Pritchard,D] |
Full Idea: Crucially, radical sceptical error-possibilities are never epistemically motivated, but are instead merely raised. | |
From: Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological Disjunctivism [2012], 3.§5) | |
A reaction: In 'The Matrix' someone sees a glitch in the software (a cat crossing a passageway), and that would have to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is a nice strategy to ask why the sceptic is raising this bizzare possibility, without evidence. |
17077 | The height of a flagpole could be fixed by its angle of shadow, but that would be very unusual [Smart] |
Full Idea: You could imagine a person using the angle from a theodolite to decide a suitable spot to cut the height of the flagpole, …but since such circumstances would be very unusual we naturally say the flagpole subtends the angle because of its height. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.14) | |
A reaction: [compressed; he mentions Van Fraassen 1980:132-3 for a similar point] As a response this seems a bit lame, if the direction is fixed by what is 'usual'. I think the key point is that the direction of explanation is one way or the other, not both. |
17078 | Universe expansion explains the red shift, but not vice versa [Smart] |
Full Idea: The theory of the expansion of the universe renders the red shift no longer puzzling, whereas he expansion of the universe is hardly rendered less puzzling by facts about the red shift. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.15) | |
A reaction: The direction of explanation is, I take it, made obvious by the direction of causation, with questions about what is 'puzzling' as mere side-effects. |
17061 | Explanation of a fact is fitting it into a system of beliefs [Smart] |
Full Idea: I want to characterise explanation of some fact as a matter of fitting belief in this fact into a system of beliefs. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.02) | |
A reaction: Sounds good to me. Simple facts slot straight into daily beliefs, and deep obscure facts are explained when we hook them up to things we have already grasped. Quark theory fits into prior physics of forces, properties etc. |
17074 | Explanations are bad by fitting badly with a web of beliefs, or fitting well into a bad web [Smart] |
Full Idea: An explanation may be bad if it fits only into a bad web of belief. It can also be bad if it fits into a (possibly good) web of belief in a bad sort of way. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.09) | |
A reaction: Nice. If you think someone has an absurd web of beliefs, then it counts against some belief (for you) if it fits beautifully into the other person's belief system. Judgement of coherence comes in at different levels. |
17076 | Deducing from laws is one possible way to achieve a coherent explanation [Smart] |
Full Idea: The Hempelian deductive-nomological model of explanation clearly fits in well with the notion of explanation in terms of coherence. One way of fitting a belief into a system is to show that it is deducible from other beliefs. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.13) | |
A reaction: Smart goes on to reject the law-based deductive approach, for familiar reasons, but at least it has something in common with the Smart view of explanation, which is the one I like. |
17071 | An explanation is better if it also explains phenomena from a different field [Smart] |
Full Idea: One explanation will be a better explanation that another if it also explains a set of phenomena from a different field ('consilience'). | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.07) | |
A reaction: This would count as 'unexpected accommodation', rather than prediction. It is a nice addition to Lipton's comparison of mere accommodation versus prediction as criteria. It sounds like a strong criterion for a persuasive explanation. |
17062 | If scientific explanation is causal, that rules out mathematical explanation [Smart] |
Full Idea: I class mathematical explanation with scientific explanation. This would be resisted by those who, unlike me, regard the notion of causation as essential to scientific explanation. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.02-3) | |
A reaction: I aim to champion mathematical explanation, in terms of axioms etc., so I am realising that my instinctive attraction to exclusively causal explanation won't do. What explanation needs is a direction of dependence. |
17075 | Scientific explanation tends to reduce things to the unfamiliar (not the familiar) [Smart] |
Full Idea: The history of science suggests that most often explanation is reduction to the unfamiliar. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.11) | |
A reaction: Boyle was keen to reduce things to the familiar, but that was early days for science, and some nasty shocks were coming our way. What would Boyle make of quantum non-locality? |
22405 | Negative utilitarianism implies that the world should be destroyed, to avoid future misery [Smart] |
Full Idea: The doctrine of negative utilitarianism (that we should concern ourselves with the minimisation of suffering, rather than the maximisation of happiness) ...means we should support a tyrant who explodes the world, to prevent infinite future misery. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Outline of a System of Utilitarianism [1973], 5) | |
A reaction: That only seems to imply that the negative utilitarian rule needs supplementary rules. We are too fond of looking for one single moral rule that guides everything. |
22404 | Any group interested in ethics must surely have a sentiment of generalised benevolence [Smart] |
Full Idea: A utilitarian can appeal to the sentiment of generalised benevolence, which is surely present in any group with whom it is profitable to discuss ethical questions. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Outline of a System of Utilitarianism [1973], I) | |
A reaction: But ethics is not intended only for those who are interested in ethics. If this is the basics of ethics, then we must leave the mafia to pursue its sordid activities without criticism. Their lack of sympathy seems to be their good fortune. |
6005 | Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley] |
Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us. | |
From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus | |
A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts? |
14613 | Special relativity won't determine a preferred frame, but we can pick one externally [Smart] |
Full Idea: Though special relativity does not determine a preferred frame of reference, it does not rule out the possibility of a frame being determined from outside the theory. Perhaps we should prefer a frame where background radiation is equal in all directions. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (The Tenseless Theory of Time [2008], 3) | |
A reaction: Of course this is a mere philosopher offering the escape clause, and not some Nobel-winning physicist, but I start from the assumption that this idea is plausible, and I am unmoved by the contempt for presentism among relativity geeks. |
17063 | Unlike Newton, Einstein's general theory explains the perihelion of Mercury [Smart] |
Full Idea: Newtonian celestial mechanics does not explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, while Einstein's general theory of relativity does. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.03) | |
A reaction: A perfect example of why explanation is the central concept in science, and probably in all epistemological activity. The desire to know is the desire for an explanation. Once the explanation is obvious, we know. |
14615 | If time flows, then 'how fast does it flow?' is a tricky question [Smart] |
Full Idea: If it is said that time flows, then it seems that the question 'how fast does it flow?' is a devastating one for the A-theorist. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (The Tenseless Theory of Time [2008], 5) | |
A reaction: This is one of the basic landmarks in any debate on time. Time can't be understood by analogy with anything else (such as a river) it seems. |
14614 | The past, present, future and tenses of A-theory are too weird, and should be analysed indexically [Smart] |
Full Idea: The main objections to the A-theory are due to the metaphysical mysteriousness of the A-theory ideas of past, present and future, and also tenses, and to the greater plausibility of analyzing them as indexicals. | |
From: J.J.C. Smart (The Tenseless Theory of Time [2008], 3) | |
A reaction: When it comes to time, every theory that has ever been though of is deeply weird, so the basic objection doesn't bother me. Analysing as indexicals just seems to be a technical way of denying reality to the present. |