37 ideas
15169 | Metaphysics is clarifying how we speak and think (and possibly improving it) [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics, for the conventionalist, is not a matter of trying to see deeply into the structure of mind-independent reality, but of trying to clarify the way we actually speak and think, and perhaps negotiating ways of doing this to our best advantage. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Note that he is still allowing space for 'revisionary' as well as for 'descriptive' metaphysics. I can't wholly accept this, as I really do think we can have some deep insights into reality, but Sidelle is articulating a large part of the truth. |
15164 | We seem to base necessities on thought experiments and imagination [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Judgments of necessity seem always to be based on thought experiments and appeals to what we can imagine. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: That is, the denial of this thing seems inconceivable. I would say that they are also based on coherence. The idea that we can think without imagination is nonsense. |
8820 | Rules of reasoning precede the concept of truth, and they are what characterize it [Pollock] |
Full Idea: Rather than truth being fundamental and rules for reasoning being derived from it, the rules for reasoning come first and truth is characterized by the rules for reasoning about truth. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Cog.Mach') | |
A reaction: This nicely disturbs our complacency about such things. There is plenty of reasoning in Homer, but I bet there is no talk of 'truth'. Pontius Pilate seems to have been a pioneer (Idea 8821). Do the truth tables define or describe logical terms? |
8819 | We need the concept of truth for defeasible reasoning [Pollock] |
Full Idea: It might be wondered why we even have a concept of truth. The answer is that this concept is required for defeasible reasoning. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Cog.Mach') | |
A reaction: His point is that we must be able to think critically about our beliefs ('is p true?') if we are to have any knowledge at all. An excellent point. Give that man a teddy bear. |
3534 | To be is to have causal powers [Alexander,S] |
Full Idea: To be is to have causal powers. | |
From: Samuel Alexander (works [1927], §4), quoted by Jaegwon Kim - Nonreductivist troubles with ment.causation | |
A reaction: This is sometimes called Alexander's Principle. It is first found in Plato, and is popular with physicalists, but there are problem cases... A thing needs to exist in order to have causal powers. To exist is more than to be perceived. |
15180 | There doesn't seem to be anything in the actual world that can determine modal facts [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Metaphysically, nothing in the actual world seems to be a candidate for determining what is necessarily the case. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: I file this under 'Dispositions' to show what is at stake in the debate about dispositional and categorical properties. I take a commitment to dispositions to be a commitment to modal facts about the actual world. |
15184 | Causal reference presupposes essentialism if it refers to modally extended entities [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Even if the causal theory of reference proper does not presuppose essentialism, it does presuppose essentialism if it is to be an account of reference to modally extended entities. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.6) |
15172 | Clearly, essential predications express necessary properties [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: It is clear, of course, that if there are true essential predications, then they express necessary properties. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: I would certainly want to ask whether essences have to be analysed as properties, and also (more boldly) whether there might not be contingent essences. |
15181 | Being a deepest explanatory feature is an actual, not a modal property [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: The property of being a deepest explanatory feature is a nonmodal property: it's an actual property. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: I don't accept the existence of properties of the form 'being-F'. The possibility of securing a door may be the deepest explanatory feature of a lock. [To be fair to Sidelle, see context - just for once!] Dispositions are actual. |
15173 | That the essence of water is its microstructure is a convention, not a discovery [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: The necessity to water of whatever is found out to be the water's microstructure is given by convention, and is not something which is discovered. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: A powerful point. It shows the authority of science that we accept the microstructure as the essence. The essences of statues and people are definitely not their microstructures. One H2O molecule isn't water. Why not? Macro-properties count too! |
15185 | We aren't clear about 'same stuff as this', so a principle of individuation is needed to identify it [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Independent of conventions, no definite sense can be given to the notion of 'the same stuff as this'. So reference-fixing must include some principle of individuation to determine the aspects of sameness for the identity referred to. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: Is he really saying that we don't understand 'same stuff as this'? Surely animals can manage that, and they are not famous for their conventions. Sidelle has fallen into the sortalist trap, I think. |
8822 | Statements about necessities need not be necessarily true [Pollock] |
Full Idea: True statements about the necessary properties of things need not be necessarily true. The well-known example is that the number of planets (9) is necessarily an odd number. The necessity is de re, but not de dicto. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Nat.Internal') | |
A reaction: This would be a matter of the scope (the placing of the brackets) of the 'necessarily' operator in a formula. The quick course in modal logic should eradicate errors of this kind in your budding philosopher. |
15175 | Evaluation of de dicto modalities does not depend on the identity of its objects [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: In the evaluation of de dicto modal statements, whether some possible state of affairs is relevant to its truth does not depend on the identity of its objects, as in 'Necessarily, the President of the USA is male'. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: This is a more clear-cut and easy to grasp criterion than most that are on offer. |
15032 | Necessary a posteriori is conventional for necessity and nonmodal for a posteriority [Sidelle, by Sider] |
Full Idea: Sidelle defends conventionalism against a posteriori necessities by 'factoring' a necessary a posteriori truth into an analytic component and a nonmodal component. The modal force then comes from the analytic part, and the a posteriority from the other. | |
From: report of Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989]) by Theodore Sider - Writing the Book of the World 12.8 | |
A reaction: [I note that Sidelle refers, it seems, to the nonmodal component as a 'deep explanatory feature', which is exactly what I take an essence to be]. |
15179 | To know empirical necessities, we need empirical facts, plus conventions about which are necessary [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: What we need to know, in order to know what is empirically necessary, is some empirical fact plus our conventions that tell us which truths are necessary given which empirical facts. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: I take this attack on a posteriori necessities to be the most persuasive part of Sidelle's case, but you can't just put all of our truths down to convention. There are stabilities in the world, as well as in our conventions. |
15171 | The necessary a posteriori is statements either of identity or of essence [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: The necessary a posteriori crudely divides into two groups - (synthetic) identity statements (between rigid designators), and statements of essential properties. The latter is either statements of property identity, or of the essences of natural kinds. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: He cites Kripke's examples (Hesperus,Cicero,Truman,water,gold), and divides them into the two groups. Helpful. |
15167 | Empiricism explores necessities and concept-limits by imagining negations of truths [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: In the traditional empiricist picture, we go about modal enquiry by trying to see whether we can imagine a situation in which it would be correct to assert the negation of a proposed necessary truth. Thus we can find out the limits of our concepts. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1) |
15177 | Contradictoriness limits what is possible and what is imaginable [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Contradictoriness is the boundary both of what is possible and also of what is imaginable. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: Of course we may see contradictions where there are none, and fail to grasp real hidden contradictions, so the two do not coincide in the practice. I think I would say it is 'a' boundary, not 'the' boundary. |
15176 | The individuals and kinds involved in modality are also a matter of convention [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: It is not merely the modal facts that result from our conventions, but the individuals and kinds that are modally involved. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: I am beginning to find Sidelle's views very sympathetic - going over to the Dark Side, I'm afraid. But conventions won't work at all if they don't correspond closely to reality. |
15174 | A thing doesn't need transworld identity prior to rigid reference - that could be a convention of the reference [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: For a term to be rigid, it is said there must be real transworld identity prior to our use of the rigid term, ..but this may only be because we have conventional principles for individuating across worlds. 'Let's call him Fred' - perhaps explicitly rigid. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: This seems right. An example might be a comic book character, who retains a perfect identity in all the comics, with no scars, weight change, or ageing. |
15183 | 'Dthat' operates to make a singular term into a rigid term [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: 'Dthat' is Kaplan's indexical operator; it operates on a given singular term, φ, and makes it into a rigid designator of whatever φ designates in the original context. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.6 n11) | |
A reaction: I like this idea a lot, because it strikes me that referring to something rigidly is a clear step beyond referring to it in actuality. I refer to 'whoever turns up each week', but that is hardly rigid. The germ of 2-D semantics is here. |
8818 | Defeasible reasoning requires us to be able to think about our thoughts [Pollock] |
Full Idea: Defeasible reasoning requires us to be able to think about our thoughts. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Cog.Mach') | |
A reaction: This is why I do not think animals 'know' anything, though they seem to have lots of true beliefs about their immediate situation. |
15165 | A priori knowledge is entirely of analytic truths [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: The a priori method yields a priori knowledge, and the objects of this knowledge are not facts about the world, but analytic truths. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Are we not allowed any insights at all into how the world must be, independent of how we happen to conceptualise it? |
8811 | What we want to know is - when is it all right to believe something? [Pollock] |
Full Idea: When we ask whether a belief is justified, we want to know whether it is all right to believe it. The question we must ask is 'when is it permissible (epistemically) to believe P?'. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Ep.Norms') | |
A reaction: Nice to see someone trying to get the question clear. The question clearly points to the fact that there must at least be some sort of social aspect to criteria of justification. I can't cheerfully follow my intuitions if everyone else laughs at them. |
8817 | Logical entailments are not always reasons for beliefs, because they may be irrelevant [Pollock] |
Full Idea: Epistemologists have noted that logical entailments do not always constitute reasons. P may entail Q without the connection between P and Q being at all obvious. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Ref.of Extern') | |
A reaction: Graham Priest and others try to develop 'relevance logic' to deal with this. This would deny the peculiar classical claim that everything is entailed by a falsehood. A belief looks promising if it entails lots of truths about the world. |
8814 | Epistemic norms are internalised procedural rules for reasoning [Pollock] |
Full Idea: Epistemic norms are to be understood in terms of procedural knowledge involving internalized rules for reasoning. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'How regulate?') | |
A reaction: He offers analogies with bicycly riding, but the simple fact that something is internalized doesn't make it a norm. Some mention of truth is needed, equivalent to 'don't crash the bike'. |
8823 | Reasons are always for beliefs, but a perceptual state is a reason without itself being a belief [Pollock] |
Full Idea: When one makes a perceptual judgement on the basis of a perceptual state, I want to say that the perceptual state itself is one's reason. ..Reason are always reasons for beliefs, but the reasons themselves need not be beliefs. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Dir.Realism') | |
A reaction: A crucial issue. I think I prefer the view of Davidson, in Ideas 8801 and 8804. Three options: a pure perception counts as a reason, or perceptions involve some conceptual content, or you only acquire a reason when a proposition is formulated. |
8813 | If we have to appeal explicitly to epistemic norms, that will produce an infinite regress [Pollock] |
Full Idea: If we had to make explicit appeal to epistemic norms for justification (the 'intellectualist model') we would find ourselves in an infinite regress. The norms, their existence and their application would themselves have to be justified. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'How regulate?') | |
A reaction: This is counter to the 'space of reasons' picture, where everything is rationally assessed. There are regresses for both reasons and for experiences, when they are offered as justifications. |
8812 | Norm Externalism says norms must be internal, but their selection is partly external [Pollock] |
Full Idea: Norm Externalism acknowledges that the content of our epistemic norms must be internalist, but employs external considerations in the selection of the norms themselves. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Ep.Norms') | |
A reaction: It can't be right that you just set your own norms, so this must contain some truth. Equally, even the most hardened externalist can't deny that what goes on in the head of the person concerned must have some relevance. |
8816 | Externalists tend to take a third-person point of view of epistemology [Pollock] |
Full Idea: Externalists tend to take a third-person point of view in discussing epistemology. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Ref.of Extern') | |
A reaction: Pollock's point, quite reasonably, is that the first-person aspect must precede any objective assessment of whether someone knows. External facts, such as unpublicised information, can undermine high quality internal justification. |
8815 | Belief externalism is false, because external considerations cannot be internalized for actual use [Pollock] |
Full Idea: External considerations of reliability could not be internalized. Consequently, it is in principle impossible for us to actually employ externalist norms. I take this to be a conclusive refutation of belief externalism. | |
From: John L. Pollock (Epistemic Norms [1986], 'Ref.of Extern') | |
A reaction: Not so fast. He earlier rejected the 'intellectualist model' (Idea 8813), so he doesn't think norms have to be fully conscious and open to criticism. So they could be innate, or the result of indoctrination (sorry, teaching), or just forgotten. |
14494 | Epiphenomenalism is like a pointless nobleman, kept for show, but soon to be abolished [Alexander,S] |
Full Idea: Epiphenomenalism supposes something to exist in nature which has nothing to do, no purpose to serve, a species of noblesse which depends on the work of its inferiors, but is kept for show and might as well, and undoubtedly would in time be abolished. | |
From: Samuel Alexander (Space, Time and Deity (2 vols) [1927], 2:8), quoted by Jaegwon Kim - Nonreductivist troubles with ment.causation IV | |
A reaction: Wonderful! Kim quotes this, and labels the implicit slogan (to be real is to have causal powers) 'Alexander's Dictum'. All the examples given of epiphenomena are only causally inert within a defined system, but they act causally outside the system. |
3398 | Epiphenomenalism makes the mind totally pointless [Alexander,S] |
Full Idea: Epiphenomenalism supposes something to exist in nature which has nothing to do and no purpose to serve. | |
From: Samuel Alexander (works [1927]), quoted by Jaegwon Kim - Philosophy of Mind p.129 | |
A reaction: An objection, but not, I think, a strong one. The fact, for example, that sweat is shiny is the result of good evolutionary reasons, but I cannot think of any purpose which it serves. All events which are purposeful are likely to have side-effects. |
15168 | That water is essentially H2O in some way concerns how we use 'water' [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: If water is essentially H2O, this is going to have something to do with our intentions in using 'water'. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This very simple point looks to be correct, and raises very important questions about the whole Twin Earth thing. When new discoveries are made, words shift their meanings. We're not quite sure what 'jade' means any more. |
15166 | Causal reference seems to get directly at the object, thus leaving its nature open [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: The causal theory of reference appears to give us a way to get at an object while leaving it undetermined what its essence or necessary features might be. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This pinpoints why the direct/causal theory of reference seems to open the doors to scientific essentialism. Sidelle, of course, opposes the whole programme. |
15182 | Because some entities overlap, reference must have analytic individuation principles [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: The phenomenon of overlapping entities requires that if our reference is to be determinate (as determinate as it is), then there must be analytic principles of individuation. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: His point is that there is something inescapably conventional about the way in which our reference works. It isn't just some bald realist baptism. |
15178 | Can anything in science reveal the necessity of what it discovers? [Sidelle] |
Full Idea: Is there anything in the procedures of scientists that could reveal to them that water is necessarily H2O or that gold necessarily has atomic number 79. | |
From: Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This is Leibniz's is view, that empirical evidence can never reveal necessities. Given that we know some necessities, you have an argument for rationalism. |