more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
Conceivability as evidence for possibility needs four interpretations. How is 'conceivable' defined or explained? How strongly is the idea endorsed? How does inconceivability fit in? And what kind of possibility (logical, physical etc) is implied?
Gist of Idea
Define conceivable; how reliable is it; does inconceivability help; and what type of possibility results?
Source
Anand Vaidya (Understanding and Essence [2010], 'Application')
Book Ref
-: 'Philosophia' [-], p.831
A Reaction
[some compression] Williamson's counterfactual account helps with the first one. The strength largely depends on whether your conceptions are well informed. Inconceivability may be your own failure. All types of possibility can be implied.
| 19440 | How do you know you have conceived a thing deeply enough to assess its possibility? [Vaidya] |
| 19259 | If 2-D conceivability can a priori show possibilities, this is a defence of conceptual analysis [Vaidya] |
| 19268 | Inconceivability (implying impossibility) may be failure to conceive, or incoherence [Vaidya] |
| 19267 | Define conceivable; how reliable is it; does inconceivability help; and what type of possibility results? [Vaidya] |
| 19266 | In a disjunctive case, the justification comes from one side, and the truth from the other [Vaidya] |
| 19260 | Gettier deductive justifications split the justification from the truthmaker [Vaidya] |
| 19262 | Essential properties are necessary, but necessary properties may not be essential [Vaidya] |
| 19264 | Aboutness is always intended, and cannot be accidental [Vaidya] |
| 19265 | Can you possess objective understanding without realising it? [Vaidya] |