display all the ideas for this combination of texts
9 ideas
| 18755 | Validity is explained as truth in all models, because that relies on the logical terms [McGee] |
| Full Idea: A model of a language assigns values to non-logical terms. If a sentence is true in every model, its truth doesn't depend on those non-logical terms. Hence the validity of an argument comes from its logical form. Thus models explain logical validity. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Thus you get a rigorous account of logical validity by only allowing the rigorous input of model theory. This is the modern strategy of analytic philosophy. But is 'it's red so it's coloured' logically valid? |
| 17587 | The 'Law' of Excluded Middle needs all propositions to be definitely true or definitely false [Inwagen] |
| Full Idea: I think the validity of the 'Law' of Excluded Middle depends on the assumption that every proposition is definitely true or definitely false. | |
| From: Peter van Inwagen (Material Beings [1990], 18) | |
| A reaction: I think this is confused. He cites vagueness as the problem, but that is a problem for Bivalence. If excluded middle is read as 'true or not-true', that leaves the meaning of 'not-true' open, and never mentions the bivalent 'false'. |
| 18751 | Natural language includes connectives like 'because' which are not truth-functional [McGee] |
| Full Idea: Natural language includes connectives that are not truth-functional. In order for 'p because q' to be true, both p and q have to be true, but knowing the simpler sentences are true doesn't determine whether the larger sentence is true. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 2) |
| 17558 | Variables are just like pronouns; syntactic explanations get muddled over dummy letters [Inwagen] |
| Full Idea: Explanations in terms of syntax do not satisfactorily distinguish true variables from dummy or schematic letters. Identifying variables with pronouns, however, provides a genuine explanation of what variables are. | |
| From: Peter van Inwagen (Material Beings [1990], 02) | |
| A reaction: I like this because it shows that our ordinary thought and speech use variables all the time ('I've forgotten something - what was it?'). He says syntax is fine for maths, but not for ordinary understanding. |
| 18761 | Second-order variables need to range over more than collections of first-order objects [McGee] |
| Full Idea: To get any advantage from moving to second-order logic, we need to assign to second-order variables a role different from merely ranging over collections made up of things the first-order variables range over. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 7) | |
| A reaction: Thus it is exciting if they range over genuine properties, but not so exciting if you merely characterise those properties as sets of first-order objects. This idea leads into a discussion of plural quantification. |
| 18753 | An ontologically secure semantics for predicate calculus relies on sets [McGee] |
| Full Idea: We can get a less ontologically perilous presentation of the semantics of the predicate calculus by using sets instead of concepts. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
| A reaction: The perilous versions rely on Fregean concepts, and notably Russell's 'concept that does not fall under itself'. The sets, of course, have to be ontologically secure, and so will involve the iterative conception, rather than naive set theory. |
| 18754 | Logically valid sentences are analytic truths which are just true because of their logical words [McGee] |
| Full Idea: Logically valid sentences are a species of analytic sentence, being true not just in virtue of the meanings of their words, but true in virtue of the meanings of their logical words. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
| A reaction: A helpful link between logical truths and analytic truths, which had not struck me before. |
| 18757 | Soundness theorems are uninformative, because they rely on soundness in their proofs [McGee] |
| Full Idea: Soundness theorems are seldom very informative, since typically we use informally, in proving the theorem, the very same rules whose soundness we are attempting to establish. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 5) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Quine 1935] |
| 17583 | There are no heaps [Inwagen] |
| Full Idea: Fortunately ....there are no heaps. | |
| From: Peter van Inwagen (Material Beings [1990], 18) | |
| A reaction: This is the nihilist view of (inorganic) physical objects. If a wild view solves all sorts of problems, one should take it serious. It is why I take reductive physicalism about the mind seriously. (Well, it's true, actually) |