|
9978
|
Analytic philosophy focuses too much on forms of expression, instead of what is actually said [Tait]
|
|
Full Idea:
The tendency to attack forms of expression rather than attempting to appreciate what is actually being said is one of the more unfortunate habits that analytic philosophy inherited from Frege.
|
|
From:
William W. Tait (Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind [1996], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
The key to this, I say, is to acknowledge the existence of propositions (in brains). For example, this belief will make teachers more sympathetic to pupils who are struggling to express an idea, and verbal nit-picking becomes totally irrelevant.
|
|
9986
|
The null set was doubted, because numbering seemed to require 'units' [Tait]
|
|
Full Idea:
The conception that what can be numbered is some object (including flocks of sheep) relative to a partition - a choice of unit - survived even in the late nineteenth century in the form of the rejection of the null set (and difficulties with unit sets).
|
|
From:
William W. Tait (Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind [1996], IX)
|
|
A reaction:
This old view can't be entirely wrong! Frege makes the point that if asked to count a pack of cards, you must decide whether to count cards, or suits, or pips. You may not need a 'unit', but you need a concept. 'Units' name concept-extensions nicely!
|
|
9984
|
We can have a series with identical members [Tait]
|
|
Full Idea:
Why can't we have a series (as opposed to a linearly ordered set) all of whose members are identical, such as (a, a, a...,a)?
|
|
From:
William W. Tait (Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind [1996], VII)
|
|
A reaction:
The question is whether the items order themselves, which presumably the natural numbers are supposed to do, or whether we impose the order (and length) of the series. What decides how many a's there are? Do we order, or does nature?
|
|
9358
|
There are several logics, none of which will ever derive falsehoods from truth [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
The fact is that there are several logics, markedly different, each self-consistent in its own terms and such that whoever, using it, avoids false premises, will never reach a false conclusion.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori [1923], p.366)
|
|
A reaction:
As the man who invented modal logic in five different versions, he speaks with some authority. Logicians now debate which version is the best, so how could that be decided? You could avoid false conclusions by never reasoning at all.
|
|
9357
|
Excluded middle is just our preference for a simplified dichotomy in experience [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
The law of excluded middle formulates our decision that whatever is not designated by a certain term shall be designated by its negative. It declares our purpose to make a complete dichotomy of experience, ..which is only our penchant for simplicity.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori [1923], p.365)
|
|
A reaction:
I find this view quite appealing. 'Look, it's either F or it isn't!' is a dogmatic attitude which irritates a lot of people, and appears to be dispensible. Intuitionists in mathematics dispense with the principle, and vagueness threatens it.
|
|
13416
|
Mathematics must be based on axioms, which are true because they are axioms, not vice versa [Tait, by Parsons,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
The axiomatic conception of mathematics is the only viable one. ...But they are true because they are axioms, in contrast to the view advanced by Frege (to Hilbert) that to be a candidate for axiomhood a statement must be true.
|
|
From:
report of William W. Tait (Intro to 'Provenance of Pure Reason' [2005], p.4) by Charles Parsons - Review of Tait 'Provenance of Pure Reason' §2
|
|
A reaction:
This looks like the classic twentieth century shift in the attitude to axioms. The Greek idea is that they must be self-evident truths, but the Tait-style view is that they are just the first steps in establishing a logical structure. I prefer the Greeks.
|
|
9365
|
We can maintain a priori principles come what may, but we can also change them [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
The a priori contains principles which can be maintained in the face of all experience, representing the initiative of the mind. But they are subject to alteration on pragmatic grounds, if expanding experience shows their intellectual infelicity.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori [1923], p.373)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This simply IS Quine's famous 'web of belief' picture, showing how firmly Quine is in the pragmatist tradition. Lewis treats a priori principles as a pragmatic toolkit, which can be refined to be more effective. Not implausible...
|
|
21500
|
We rely on memory for empirical beliefs because they mutually support one another [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
When the whole range of empirical beliefs is taken into account, all of them more or less dependent on memorial knowledge, we find that those which are most credible can be assured by their mutual support, or 'congruence'.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation [1946], 334), quoted by Erik J. Olsson - Against Coherence 3.1
|
|
A reaction:
Lewis may be over-confident about this, and is duly attacked by Olson, but it seems to me roughly correct. How do you assess whether some unusual element in your memory was a dream or a real experience?
|
|
6556
|
If anything is to be probable, then something must be certain [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
If anything is to be probable, then something must be certain.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation [1946], 186), quoted by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason Intro
|
|
A reaction:
Lewis makes this comment when facing infinite regress problems. It is a very nice slogan for foundationalism, which embodies the slippery slope view. Personally I feel the emotional pull of foundations, but acknowledge the very strong doubts about them.
|
|
21498
|
Congruents assertions increase the probability of each individual assertion in the set [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
A set of statements, or a set of supposed facts asserted, will be said to be congruent if and only if they are so related that the antecedent probability of any one of them will be increased if the remainder of the set can be assumed as given premises.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation [1946], 338), quoted by Erik J. Olsson - Against Coherence 2.2
|
|
A reaction:
This thesis is vigorously attacked by Erik Olson, who works through the probability calculations. There seems an obvious problem without that. How else do you assess 'congruence', other than by evidence of mutual strengthening?
|
|
5828
|
Extension is the class of things, intension is the correct definition of the thing, and intension determines extension [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
"The denotation or extension of a term is the class of all actual or existent things which the term correctly applies to or names; the connotation or intension of a term is delimited by any correct definition of it." ..And intension determines extension.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation [1946]), quoted by Stephen P. Schwartz - Intro to Naming,Necessity and Natural Kinds §II
|
|
A reaction:
The last part is one of the big ideas in philosophy of language, which was rejected by Putnam and co. If you were to reverse the slogan, though, (to extension determines intension) how would you identify the members of the extension?
|
|
9982
|
Cantor and Dedekind use abstraction to fix grammar and objects, not to carry out proofs [Tait]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although (in Cantor and Dedekind) abstraction does not (as has often been observed) play any role in their proofs, but it does play a role, in that it fixes the grammar, the domain of meaningful propositions, and so determining the objects in the proofs.
|
|
From:
William W. Tait (Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind [1996], V)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This is part of a defence of abstractionism in Cantor and Dedekind (see K.Fine also on the subject). To know the members of a set, or size of a domain, you need to know the process or function which created the set.
|
|
9985
|
Abstraction may concern the individuation of the set itself, not its elements [Tait]
|
|
Full Idea:
A different reading of abstraction is that it concerns, not the individuating properties of the elements relative to one another, but rather the individuating properties of the set itself, for example the concept of what is its extension.
|
|
From:
William W. Tait (Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind [1996], VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
If the set was 'objects in the room next door', we would not be able to abstract from the objects, but we might get to the idea of things being contain in things, or the concept of an object, or a room. Wrong. That's because they are objects... Hm.
|
|
9980
|
If abstraction produces power sets, their identity should imply identity of the originals [Tait]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the power |A| is obtained by abstraction from set A, then if A is equipollent to set B, then |A| = |B|. But this does not imply that A = B. So |A| cannot just be A, taken in abstraction, unless that can identify distinct sets, ..or create new objects.
|
|
From:
William W. Tait (Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind [1996], V)
|
|
A reaction:
An elegant piece of argument, which shows rather crucial facts about abstraction. We are then obliged to ask how abstraction can create an object or a set, if the central activity of abstraction is just ignoring certain features.
|
|
2854
|
Prescriptivism says 'ought' without commitment to act is insincere, or weakly used [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Prescriptivism holds that if you think one 'ought' to do a certain kind of act, and yet you are not committed to doing that act in the relevant circumstances, then you either spoke insincerely, or are using the word 'ought' in a weak sense.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Prescriptivism [1995], p.640)
|
|
A reaction:
So that's an 'ought', but not a 'genuine ought', then? (No True Scotsman move). Someone ought to rescue that drowning child, but I can't be bothered.
|
|
20883
|
Modern utilitarians value knowledge, friendship, autonomy, and achievement, as well as pleasure [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Most utilitarians now think that pleasure, even if construed widely, is not the only thing desirable in itself. ...Goods also include important knowledge, friendship, autonomy, achievement and so on.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
That pleasure is desired is empirically verifiable, which certainly motivated Bentham. A string of other desirables each needs to be justified - but how? What would be the value of a 'friendship' if neither party got pleasure from it?
|
|
20885
|
Euthanasia is active or passive, and voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Six types of euthanasia: 1) Active voluntary (knowing my wishes), 2) Active non-voluntary (not knowing my wishes), 3) Active involuntary (against my wishes), 4) Passive voluntary, 5) Passive non-voluntary, 6) Passive involuntary.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
'Active' is intervening, and 'passive' is not intervening. A helpful framework.
|
|
20882
|
Euthanasia may not involve killing, so it is 'killing or not saving, out of concern for that person' [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Passive euthanasia is arguably not killing, and the death involved is often painful, so let us take the term 'euthanasia' to mean 'either killing or passing up opportunities to save someone, out of concern for that person'.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds good, and easily settled, until you think concern for that person could have two different outcomes, depending on whether the criteria are those of the decider or of the patient. Think of religious decider and atheist patient, or vice versa.
|
|
9363
|
Science seeks classification which will discover laws, essences, and predictions [Lewis,CI]
|
|
Full Idea:
The scientific search is for such classification as will make it possible to correlate appearance and behaviour, to discover law, to penetrate to the "essential nature" of things in order that behaviour may become predictable.
|
|
From:
C.I. Lewis (A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori [1923], p.368)
|
|
A reaction:
Modern scientific essentialists no longer invoke scare quotes, and I think we should talk of the search for the 'mechanisms' which explain behaviour, but Lewis seems to have been sixty years ahead of his time.
|