more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 6517

[filed under theme 14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / b. Aims of explanation ]

Full Idea

The fact that order requires an explanation seems to be an a priori principle; ..we assume all possibilities are equally likely, and so no striking regularities should emerge; the sceptic replies that a highly ordered sequence is as likely as any other.

Gist of Idea

If all possibilities are equal, order seems (a priori) to need an explanation - or does it?

Source

Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3)

Book Ref

Robinson,Howard: 'Perception' [Routledge 2001], p.216


A Reaction

An independent notion of 'order' is required. If I write down '14356', and then throw 1 4 3 5 6 on a die, the match is the order; instrinsically 14356 is nothing special. If you threw the die a million times, a run of six sixes seems quite likely.


The 26 ideas from Howard Robinson

Sense-data do not have any intrinsic intentionality [Robinson,H]
For idealists and phenomenalists sense-data are in objects; representative realists say they resemble objects [Robinson,H]
If intentional states are intrinsically about other things, what are their own properties? [Robinson,H]
Most moderate empiricists adopt Locke's representative theory of perception [Robinson,H]
When a red object is viewed, the air in between does not become red [Robinson,H]
If objects are not coloured, and neither are sense-contents, we are left saying that nothing is coloured [Robinson,H]
Shape can be experienced in different ways, but colour and sound only one way [Robinson,H]
If secondary qualities match senses, would new senses create new qualities? [Robinson,H]
We say objects possess no intrinsic secondary qualities because physicists don't need them [Robinson,H]
Locke's solidity is not matter, because that is impenetrability and hardness combined [Robinson,H]
An explanation presupposes something that is improbable unless it is explained [Robinson,H]
If all possibilities are equal, order seems (a priori) to need an explanation - or does it? [Robinson,H]
Representative realists believe that laws of phenomena will apply to the physical world [Robinson,H]
If reality just has relational properties, what are its substantial ontological features? [Robinson,H]
Phenomenalism can be theistic (Berkeley), or sceptical (Hume), or analytic (20th century) [Robinson,H]
Can we reduce perception to acquisition of information, which is reduced to causation or disposition? [Robinson,H]
For physicalists, the only relations are spatial, temporal and causal [Robinson,H]
Physicalism cannot allow internal intentional objects, as brain states can't be 'about' anything [Robinson,H]
Sense-data are rejected because they are a veil between us and reality, leading to scepticism [Robinson,H]
'Sense redly' sounds peculiar, but 'senses redly-squarely tablely' sounds far worse [Robinson,H]
Adverbialism sees the contents of sense-experience as modes, not objects [Robinson,H]
If there are only 'modes' of sensing, then an object can no more be red or square than it can be proud or lazy. [Robinson,H]
Sense-data leads to either representative realism or phenomenalism or idealism [Robinson,H]
Representative realists believe some properties of sense-data are shared by the objects themselves [Robinson,H]
Would someone who recovered their sight recognise felt shapes just by looking? [Robinson,H]
Secondary qualities have one sensory mode, but primary qualities can have more [Robinson,H]