|
17896
|
We need to know the meaning of 'and', prior to its role in reasoning [Prior,AN, by Belnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Prior, so the moral goes, we must first have a notion of what 'and' means, independently of the role it plays as premise and as conclusion.
|
|
From:
report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Nuel D. Belnap - Tonk, Plonk and Plink p.132
|
|
A reaction:
The meaning would be given by the truth tables (the truth-conditions), whereas the role would be given by the natural deduction introduction and elimination rules. This seems to be the basic debate about logical connectives.
|
|
17898
|
Prior's 'tonk' is inconsistent, since it allows the non-conservative inference A |- B [Belnap on Prior,AN]
|
|
Full Idea:
Prior's definition of 'tonk' is inconsistent. It gives us an extension of our original characterisation of deducibility which is not conservative, since in the extension (but not the original) we have, for arbitrary A and B, A |- B.
|
|
From:
comment on Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Nuel D. Belnap - Tonk, Plonk and Plink p.135
|
|
A reaction:
Belnap's idea is that connectives don't just rest on their rules, but also on the going concern of normal deduction.
|
|
15201
|
That Queen Anne is dead is a 'general fact', not a fact about Queen Anne [Prior,AN]
|
|
Full Idea:
The fact that Queen Anne has been dead for some years is not, in the strict sense of 'about', a fact about Queen Anne; it is not a fact about anyone or anything - it is a general fact.
|
|
From:
Arthur N. Prior (Changes in Events and Changes in Things [1968], p.13), quoted by Robin Le Poidevin - Past, Present and Future of Debate about Tense 1 b
|
|
A reaction:
He distinguishes 'general facts' (states of affairs, I think) from 'individual facts', involving some specific object. General facts seem to be what are expressed by negative existential truths, such as 'there is no Loch Ness Monster'. Useful.
|
|
11946
|
Propensities are part of a situation, not part of the objects [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
Propensities should not be regarded as inherent in an object, such as a die or a penny, but should be regarded as inherent in a situation (of which, of course, the object was part).
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (A World of Propensities [1993], p.14), quoted by George Molnar - Powers 6.2
|
|
A reaction:
Molnar argues against this claim, and I agree with him. We can see why Popper might prefer this relational view, given that powers often only become apparent in unusual relational situations.
|
|
12177
|
Human artefacts may have essences, in their purposes [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
One might adopt the view that certain things of our own making, such as clocks, may well be said to have 'essences', viz. their 'purposes', and what makes them serve these purposes.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3 n17)
|
|
A reaction:
This is from one of the arch-opponents of essentialism. Could we take him on a slippery slope into essences for evolved creatures, or their organs? His argument says admitting an essence for a clock prevents using it for another purpose.
|
|
18284
|
Particulars can be verified or falsified, but general statements can only be falsified (conclusively) [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whereas particular reality statements are in principle completely verifiable or falsifiable, things are different for general reality statements: they can indeed be conclusively falsified, they can acquire a negative truth value, but not a positive one.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Two Problems of Epistemology [1932], p.256), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 18 'Laws'
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds like a logician's approach to science, but I prefer to look at coherence, where very little is actually conclusive, and one tinkers with the theory instead.
|
|
20014
|
Actions include: the involuntary, the purposeful, the intentional, and the self-consciously autonomous [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are different levels of action, including at least: unconscious and/or involuntary behaviour, purposeful or goal-directed activity, intentional action, and the autonomous acts or actions of self-consciously active human agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The fourth class is obviously designed to distinguish us from the other animals. It immediately strikes me as very optimistic to distinguish four (at least) clear categories, but you have to start somewhere.
|
|
20019
|
Maybe bodily movements are not actions, but only part of an agent's action of moving [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some say that the movement's of agent's body are never actions. It is only the agent's direct moving of, say, his leg that constitutes a physical action; the leg movement is merely caused by and/or incorporated as part of the act of moving.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[they cite Jennifer Hornsby 1980] It seems normal to deny a twitch the accolade of an 'action', so I suppose that is right. Does the continual movement of my tongue count as action? Only if I bring it under control? Does it matter? Only in forensics.
|
|
20021
|
Is the action the arm movement, the whole causal process, or just the trying to do it? [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some philosophers have favored the overt arm movement the agent performs, some favor the extended causal process he initiates, and some prefer the relevant event of trying that precedes and 'generates' the rest.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Davidson argues for the second, Hornsby for the third] There seems no way to settle this, and a compromise looks best. Mere movement won't do, and mere trying won't do, and whole processes get out of control.
|
|
20022
|
To be intentional, an action must succeed in the manner in which it was planned [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone fires a bullet to kill someone, misses, and dislodges hornets that sting him to death, this implies that an intentional action must include succeeding in a manner according to the original plan.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[their example, compressed] This resembles Gettier's problem cases for knowledge. If the shooter deliberately and maliciously brought down the hornet's nest, that would be intentional murder. Sounds right.
|
|
20023
|
If someone believes they can control the lottery, and then wins, the relevant skill is missing [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone enters the lottery with the bizarre belief that they can control who wins, and then wins it, that suggest that intentional actions must not depend on sheer luck, but needs competent exercise of the relevant skill.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice companion to Idea 20022, which show that a mere intention is not sufficient to motivate and explain an action.
|
|
20025
|
We might intend two ways to acting, knowing only one of them can succeed [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If an agent tries to do something by two different means, only one of which can succeed, then the behaviour is rational, even though one of them is an attempt to do an action which cannot succeed.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[a concise account of a laborious account of an example from Bratman 1984, 1987] Bratman uses this to challenge the 'Simple View', that intention leads straightforwardly to action.
|
|
20031
|
On one model, an intention is belief-desire states, and intentional actions relate to beliefs and desires [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the simple desire-belief model, an intention is a combination of desire-belief states, and an action is intentional in virtue of standing in the appropriate relation to these simpler terms.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the traditional view found in Hume, and is probably endemic to folk psychology. They cite Bratman 1987 as the main opponent of the view.
|
|
20028
|
Groups may act for reasons held by none of the members, so maybe groups are agents [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Rational group action may involve a 'collectivising of reasons', with participants acting in ways that are not rationally recommended from the individual viewpoint. This suggests that groups can be rational, intentional agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Pettit 2003] is the source for this. Gilbert says individuals can have joint commitment; Pettit says the group can be an independent agent. The matter of shared intentions is interesting, but there is no need for the ontology to go berserk.
|
|
20027
|
If there are shared obligations and intentions, we may need a primitive notion of 'joint commitment' [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
An account of mutual obligation to do something may require that we give up reductive individualist accounts of shared activity and posit a primitive notion of 'joint commitment'.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[attributed to Margaret Gilbert 2000] If 'we' are trying to do something, that seems to give an externalist picture of intentions, rather like all the other externalisms floating around these days. I don't buy any of it, me.
|
|
20018
|
Strong Cognitivism implies a mode of 'practical' knowledge, not based on observation [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Strong Cognitivists say intentions/beliefs are not based on observation or evidence, and are causally reliable in leading to appropriate actions, so this is a mode of 'practical' knowledge that has not been derived from observation.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed - Stanford unnecessarily verbose!] I see no mention in this discussion of 'hoping' that your action will turn out OK. We are usually right to hope, but it would be foolish to say that when we reach for the salt we know we won't knock it over.
|
|
12175
|
Galilean science aimed at true essences, as the ultimate explanations [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
The third of the Galilean doctrines of science is that the best, the truly scientific theories, describe the 'essences' or the 'essential natures' of things - the realities which lie behind the appearances. They are ultimate explanations.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the seventeenth century doctrine which was undermined by Humeanism, and hence despised by Popper, but is now making a comeback, with a new account of essence and necessity.
|
|
22899
|
'Thank goodness that's over' is not like 'thank goodness that happened on Friday' [Prior,AN]
|
|
Full Idea:
One says 'thank goodness that is over', ..and it says something which it is impossible which any use of any tenseless copula with a date should convey. It certainly doesn't mean the same as 'thank goodness that occured on Friday June 15th 1954'.
|
|
From:
Arthur N. Prior (Changes in Events and Changes in Things [1968]), quoted by Adrian Bardon - Brief History of the Philosophy of Time 4 'Pervasive'
|
|
A reaction:
[Ref uncertain] This seems to be appealing to ordinary usage, in which tenses have huge significance. If we take time (with its past, present and future) as primitive, then tenses can have full weight. Did tenses mean anything at all to Einstein?
|