|
2854
|
Prescriptivism says 'ought' without commitment to act is insincere, or weakly used [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Prescriptivism holds that if you think one 'ought' to do a certain kind of act, and yet you are not committed to doing that act in the relevant circumstances, then you either spoke insincerely, or are using the word 'ought' in a weak sense.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Prescriptivism [1995], p.640)
|
|
A reaction:
So that's an 'ought', but not a 'genuine ought', then? (No True Scotsman move). Someone ought to rescue that drowning child, but I can't be bothered.
|
|
8404
|
Explain single events by general rules, or vice versa, or probability explains both, or they are unconnected [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some think singular causal claims should be explained in terms of general causal claims; some think the order should be reversed; some think a third thing (e.g. objective probability) will explain both; and some think they are only loosely connected.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
I think Ducasse gives the best account, which is the second option, of giving singular causal claims priority. Probability (Mellor) strikes me as a non-starter, and the idea that they are fairly independent seems rather implausible.
|
|
8401
|
Physical laws are largely time-symmetric, so they make a poor basis for directional causation [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is sometimes pointed out that (perhaps with a few minor exceptions) the fundamental physical laws are completely time-symmetric. If so, then if one is inclined to found causation on fundamental physical law, it isn't evident how directionality gets in.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
All my instincts tell me that causation is more fundamental than laws, and that directionality is there at the start. That, though, raises the nice question of how, if causation explains laws, the direction eventually gets left OUT!
|
|
8402
|
The only reason for adding the notion of 'cause' to fundamental physics is directionality [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although it is true that the notion of 'cause' is not needed in fundamental physics, even statistical physics, still directionality considerations don't preclude this notion from being consistently added to fundamental physics.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This only makes sense if the notion of cause already has directionality built into it, which I think is correct. The physicist might reply that they don't care about directionality, but the whole idea of an experiment seems to depend on it (Idea 8363).
|