21 ideas
19115 | You can 'rebut' an argument's conclusion, or 'undercut' its premises [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: A 'rebut' of an argument establishes that its conclusion is not the case. An 'undercut' of the argument shows that the premises do not support that conclusion. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 3.2) |
19119 | We infer that other objects are like some exceptional object, if they share some of its properties [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: The exceptional status of an object with respect to some default is more likely to spread to other objects if they share properties with that object that may play a role in explaining the exceptional status. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 4) | |
A reaction: This is an example of the sort of rational behaviour we exhibit, and which a 'real life' logic would somehow need to capture. I would suggest the essentialist logic designed by Kit Fine as a first port of call. |
19111 | Reasoning may be defeated by new premises, or by finding out more about the given ones [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: Most defeasible reasoning is externally dynamic, affected by the addition of further premises. But there is also an internal (or 'diachronic') dynamic, when further analysis reveals more about the given premises. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 1) |
19114 | Should we accept Floating Conclusions, derived from two arguments in conflict? [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: There is much discussion of whether Floating Conclusions should be derived, given that they were derived from two arguments which conflict with one another. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 2.3) |
19113 | Weakest Link Principle: prefer the argument whose weakest link is the stronger [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: In the Weakest Link Principle, an argument is preferred to another conflicting argument if its weakest defeasible link is stronger than the weakest defeasible link in the conflicting argument. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 2.1) | |
A reaction: [He cites John Pollock 1991] This sounds like the elementary principle applied when choosing a rope by which to hang a large weight above your head. It gets non-monotonic logic off the ground - if you know how to evaluate 'weakest'. |
19116 | Non-monotonic core: Reflexivity, Cut, Cautious Monotonicity, Left Logical Equivalence, Right Weakening [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: Conservative core of non-monotonic logic:Reflexivity (p proves p), Cut (if p proves q, it proves their joint implications), Cautious Monotonicity, Left Logical Equivalence (equivalences have same consequences), Right Weakening (non-m preserves classical). | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 3.5.1) | |
A reaction: [Highly compressed, and without symbols] |
19117 | We can rank a formula by the level of surprise if it were to hold [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: We can think of an 'ordinal ranking function' κ([φ)] as the level of surprise we would face were φ to hold, up to maximal surprise. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 3.5.2) | |
A reaction: This suggests that Bayes's Theorem might be relevant to non-monotonic logic. This suggests that registering surprise would need to be an important feature of robot behaviour. |
19118 | People don't actually use classical logic, but may actually use non-monotonic logic [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: Test subjects seem to perform very poorly in various reasoning tests (Wason Selection, Suppression Task), suggesting logic has a subordinate role, but this may be using classical logic, where non-monotonic logics would be more appropriate. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 4) | |
A reaction: Fred Sommers presents his Term Logic (based on Aristotle) as closer to how people actually reason. It is certainly crazy to infer that most people's everyday reasoning is irrational. Induction is highly rational; it's just not deductive. |
19110 | In classical logic the relation |= has Monotony built into its definition [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: In classical logic, Monotony follows immediately from the nature of the relation |=, for Γ |= φ holds precisely when φ is true on every interpretation on which all sentences in Γ are true. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 1) | |
A reaction: That is, semantic consequence (|=) is defined in terms of a sentence (φ) always being true if some other bunch of sentences (Γ) are true. Hence the addition of further sentences to Γ will make no difference - which is Monotony. |
19112 | Cautious Monotony ignores proved additions; Rational Monotony fails if the addition's negation is proved [Antonelli] |
Full Idea: Basic Monotony: something stays proved if further premises are added. Cautious Monotony: the addition of something which has been proved makes no difference. Rational Monotony: it stays proved as long as the addition's negation hasn't been proved. | |
From: G. Aldo Antonelli (Non-Monotonic Logic [2014], 1) | |
A reaction: [A compressed and non-symbolic summary] |
19682 | Internalists are much more interested in evidence than externalists are [McGrew] |
Full Idea: The notion of evidence generally plays a much more significant role in internalist epistemologies than it does in various forms of externalism. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Prop..') | |
A reaction: I'm guessing that this is because evidence needs a certain amount of interpretation, whereas raw facts (which externalists seem to rely on) may never even enter a mind. |
19684 | Does spotting a new possibility count as evidence? [McGrew] |
Full Idea: Does the sudden realization of a heretofore unrecognized possibility count as evidence? | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Evid..') | |
A reaction: [Nice use of 'heretofore'! Why say 'previously' when you can keep these wonderful old English words alive?] This means that we can imagine new evidence ('maybe the murderer was a snake'!). Wrong. The evidence is what suggests the possibility. |
19687 | Absence of evidence proves nothing, and weird claims need special evidence [McGrew] |
Full Idea: Two well know slogans (popularised by Carl Sagan) are 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', ...and 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Absence') | |
A reaction: [Sagan was a popular science writer and broadcaster] The second one is something like Hume's argument against miracles. The old problem of the 'missing link' for human evolution embodied the first idea. |
19688 | Every event is highly unlikely (in detail), but may be perfectly plausible [McGrew] |
Full Idea: At a certain level of detail, almost any claim is unprecedented. How likely is 'Matilda won at Scrabble on Thursday with a score of 438 while drinking mint tea'? But there is nothing particularly unbelievable about the claim. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Extraordinary') | |
A reaction: A striking idea, which rules out the simplistic idea that we can just assess evidence by its isolated likelihood. Context is crucial. How good is 438? What if she smoked opium? What if there is no Scrabble set on her island? |
19686 | Criminal law needs two separate witnesses, but historians will accept one witness [McGrew] |
Full Idea: An ancient rule in law is that a criminal conviction needs evidence of two independent witnesses, but in history it is assumed that a document deserves the benefit of the doubt if it cannot be independently verified. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Interp..') | |
A reaction: [compressed; McGrew's full account qualifies it a bit] A nice observation. One might even be suspicious of the two 'independent' witnesses, if there were lots of other reasons to doubt someon's guilt. A single weird document is also dubious. |
19680 | Maybe all evidence consists of beliefs, rather than of facts [McGrew] |
Full Idea: Some philosophers have been attracted to the view that, strictly speaking, what counts as evidence is not a set of physical objects or even experiences, but rather a set of believed propositions. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Prop..') | |
A reaction: This may be right. However, as always, I think animals are a key test. Do animals respond to evidence? Even if they did, they might need to 'make sense' of what they experienced, and even formulate a non-linguistic proposition. |
19681 | If all evidence is propositional, what is the evidence for the proposition? Do we face a regress? [McGrew] |
Full Idea: Taking evidence as propositional may trade one problem for another. If the bloodstain isn't evidence, but 'this is a bloodstain' is evidence, then what serves as evidence for the belief about the bloodstain? Is there an infinite regress? | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Prop..') | |
A reaction: [compressed] I quite like evidence being propositional, but then find this. I'll retreat to my beloved coherence. I do not endorse Sellars's 'only a belief can justify a belief', because raw experience has to be part of what is coherent. |
19689 | Several unreliable witnesses can give good support, if they all say the same thing [McGrew] |
Full Idea: The testimony of a number of independent witnesses, none of them particularly reliable, who give substantially the same account of some event, may provide a strong argument in its favor. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Testimonial') | |
A reaction: A striking point. It obviously works well for panicking people in a crowd during an incident. Does it also apply to independent scientists who are known to cheat? They may not collaborate, but may all want the same result. |
19683 | Narrow evidentialism relies wholly on propositions; the wider form includes other items [McGrew] |
Full Idea: Evidentialism comes in both narrow and wide forms depending on whether evidence is taken to consist only of propositions or of a wider range of items. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Evid..') | |
A reaction: [He cites Conee and Feldman for the wide view, which is not restricted to beliefs] You can hardly rely on occurrent beliefs as evidence, so we often have good knowledge with forgotten justification. But such knowledge has been 'weakened'. |
19685 | Falsificationism would be naive if even a slight discrepancy in evidence killed a theory [McGrew] |
Full Idea: Data do not quite speak for themselves, which speaks against a naive form of falsificationism according to which even the slightest mismatch between theory and evidence suffices to overturn a theory. | |
From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Interp..') | |
A reaction: [He cites Robert Boyle wisely ignoring some data to get a good fit for his graph] |
3029 | Stilpo said if Athena is a daughter of Zeus, then a statue is only the child of a sculptor, and so is not a god [Stilpo, by Diog. Laertius] |
Full Idea: Stilpo asked a man whether Athena is the daughter of Zeus, and when he said yes, said,"But this statue of Athena by Phidias is the child of Phidias, so it is not a god." | |
From: report of Stilpo (fragments/reports [c.330 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.10.5 |