more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
It's a kind of lunacy to think that sound scientific philosophy demands that we think that we see ink-tracks but not words, i.e. word-types.
Gist of Idea
It is lunacy to think we only see ink-marks, and not word-types
Source
George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.128)
Book Ref
Boolos,George: 'Logic, Logic and Logic' [Harvard 1999], p.128
A Reaction
This seems to link him with Armstrong's mockery of 'ostrich nominalism'. There seems to be some ambiguity with the word 'see' in this disagreement. When we look at very ancient scratches on stones, why don't we always 'see' if it is words?
| 10482 | The logic of ZF is classical first-order predicate logic with identity [Boolos] |
| 10483 | Mathematics and science do not require very high orders of infinity [Boolos] |
| 10484 | The iterative conception says sets are formed at stages; some are 'earlier', and must be formed first [Boolos] |
| 10485 | Naïve sets are inconsistent: there is no set for things that do not belong to themselves [Boolos] |
| 10488 | It is lunacy to think we only see ink-marks, and not word-types [Boolos] |
| 10487 | I am a fan of abstract objects, and confident of their existence [Boolos] |
| 10489 | We deal with abstract objects all the time: software, poems, mistakes, triangles.. [Boolos] |
| 10490 | Mathematics isn't surprising, given that we experience many objects as abstract [Boolos] |
| 10491 | Infinite natural numbers is as obvious as infinite sentences in English [Boolos] |
| 10492 | A few axioms of set theory 'force themselves on us', but most of them don't [Boolos] |