15 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? |
15941 | For intuitionists excluded middle is an outdated historical convention [Brouwer] |
Full Idea: From the intuitionist standpoint the dogma of the universal validity of the principle of excluded third in mathematics can only be considered as a phenomenon of history of civilization, like the rationality of pi or rotation of the sky about the earth. | |
From: Luitzen E.J. Brouwer (works [1930]), quoted by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite VI.2 | |
A reaction: [Brouwer 1952:510-11] |
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) |
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] |
18247 | Brouwer saw reals as potential, not actual, and produced by a rule, or a choice [Brouwer, by Shapiro] |
Full Idea: In his early writing, Brouwer took a real number to be a Cauchy sequence determined by a rule. Later he augmented rule-governed sequences with free-choice sequences, but even then the attitude is that Cauchy sequences are potential, not actual infinities. | |
From: report of Luitzen E.J. Brouwer (works [1930]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 6.6 | |
A reaction: This is the 'constructivist' view of numbers, as espoused by intuitionists like Brouwer. |
18760 | The culmination of Euclidean geometry was axioms that made all models isomorphic [McGee] |
Full Idea: One of the culminating achievements of Euclidean geometry was categorical axiomatisations, that describe the geometric structure so completely that any two models of the axioms are isomorphic. The axioms are second-order. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 7) | |
A reaction: [He cites Veblen 1904 and Hilbert 1903] For most mathematicians, categorical axiomatisation is the best you can ever dream of (rather than a single true axiomatisation). |
6871 | We can't only believe things if we are currently conscious of their justification - there are too many [Goldman] |
Full Idea: Strong internalism says only current conscious states can justify beliefs, but this has the problem of Stored Beliefs, that most of our beliefs are stored in memory, and one's conscious state includes nothing that justifies them. | |
From: Alvin I. Goldman (Internalism Exposed [1999], §2) | |
A reaction: This point seems obviously correct, but one could still have a 'fairly strong' version, which required that you could always call into consciousness the justificiation for any belief that you happened to remember. |
6872 | Internalism must cover Forgotten Evidence, which is no longer retrievable from memory [Goldman] |
Full Idea: Even weak internalism has the problem of Forgotten Evidence; the agent once had adequate evidence that she subsequently forgot; at the time of epistemic appraisal, she no longer has adequate evidence that is retrievable from memory. | |
From: Alvin I. Goldman (Internalism Exposed [1999], §3) | |
A reaction: This is certainly a basic problem for any account of justification. It will rule out any strict requirement that there be actual mental states available to support a belief. Internalism may be pushed to include non-conscious parts of the mind. |
6874 | Internal justification needs both mental stability and time to compute coherence [Goldman] |
Full Idea: The problem for internalists of Doxastic Decision Interval says internal justification must avoid mental change to preserve the justification status, but must also allow enough time to compute the formal relations between beliefs. | |
From: Alvin I. Goldman (Internalism Exposed [1999], §4) | |
A reaction: The word 'compute' implies a rather odd model of assessing coherence, which seems instantaneous for most of us where everyday beliefs are concerned. In real mental life this does not strike me as a problem. |
6873 | Coherent justification seems to require retrieving all our beliefs simultaneously [Goldman] |
Full Idea: The problem of Concurrent Retrieval is a problem for internalism, notably coherentism, because an agent could ascertain coherence of her entire corpus only by concurrently retrieving all of her stored beliefs. | |
From: Alvin I. Goldman (Internalism Exposed [1999], §3) | |
A reaction: Sounds neat, but not very convincing. Goldman is relying on scepticism about short-term memory, but all belief and knowledge will collapse if we go down that road. We couldn't do simple arithmetic if Goldman's point were right. |
6875 | Reliability involves truth, and truth is external [Goldman] |
Full Idea: Reliability involves truth, and truth (on the usual assumption) is external. | |
From: Alvin I. Goldman (Internalism Exposed [1999], §6) | |
A reaction: As an argument for externalism this seems bogus. I am not sure that truth is either 'internal' or 'external'. How could the truth of 3+2=5 be external? Facts are mostly external, but I take truth to be a relation between internal and external. |
18762 | A maxim claims that if we are allowed to assert a sentence, that means it must be true [McGee] |
Full Idea: If our linguistic conventions entitle us to assert a sentence, they thereby make it true, because of the maxim that 'truth is the norm of assertion'. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 8) | |
A reaction: You could only really deny that maxim if you had no belief at all in truth, but then you can assert anything you like (with full entitlement). Maybe you can assert anything you like as long as it doesn't upset anyone? Etc. |