Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Metaphysics', 'Ontology and Mathematical Truth' and 'The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


7 ideas

13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 1. Justification / a. Justification issues
A 'warrant' is a process which ensures that a true belief is knowledge [Kitcher]
     Full Idea: A 'warrant' refers to those processes which produce belief 'in the right way': X knows that p iff p, and X believes that p, and X's belief that p was produced by a process which is a warrant for it.
     From: Philip Kitcher (The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge [1984], 01.2)
     A reaction: That is, a 'warrant' is a justification which makes a belief acceptable as knowledge. Traditionally, warrants give you certainty (and are, consequently, rather hard to find). I would say, in the modern way, that warrants are agreed by social convention.
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 1. Justification / c. Defeasibility
If experiential can defeat a belief, then its justification depends on the defeater's absence [Kitcher, by Casullo]
     Full Idea: According to Kitcher, if experiential evidence can defeat someone's justification for a belief, then their justification depends on the absence of that experiential evidence.
     From: report of Philip Kitcher (The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge [1984], p.89) by Albert Casullo - A Priori Knowledge 2.3
     A reaction: Sounds implausible. There are trillions of possible defeaters for most beliefs, but to say they literally depend on trillions of absences seems a very odd way of seeing the situation
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / e. Pro-foundations
The starting point of a proof is not a proof [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Who defines the healthy man, or who is awake or asleep? This is a pursuit of foundations, but this is seeking an account where there isn't one. The starting point of a proof is not a proof.
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1011a10)
     A reaction: a comment on Descartes
13. Knowledge Criteria / D. Scepticism / 5. Dream Scepticism
Dreams aren't a serious problem. No one starts walking round Athens next morning, having dreamt that they were there! [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Is it really an issue whether things are true that appear to those asleep or to those awake? No one in Libya who dreamt he was in Athens, would set out for the Odeon next morning!
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1010b09)
13. Knowledge Criteria / E. Relativism / 3. Subjectivism
If relativism is individual, how can something look sweet and not taste it, or look different to our two eyes? [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: If things are true relative to an individual, how can something seem honey to the sight but not to the taste, or, given that we have two eyes, things may not seem the same to the sight of both of them.
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1011a24)
If truth is relative it is relational, and concerns appearances relative to a situation [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: The claim that all appearances are true makes all things relational. Hence the claim is shifted to all appearances being true relative to a subject, time, sense and context.
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1011a20)
     A reaction: applies to Epicurus
13. Knowledge Criteria / E. Relativism / 6. Relativism Critique
If the majority had diseased taste, and only a few were healthy, relativists would have to prefer the former [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: When two men taste the same thing one will often find it sweet and the other bitter. Suppose all men were sick, except one or two who were healthy. It would then be the latter two who would be considered sick, and the others not!
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1009b05)