|
8083
|
Boole applied normal algebra to logic, aiming at an algebra of thought [Boole, by Devlin]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boole proposed to use the entire apparatus of a school algebra class, with operations such as addition and multiplication, methods to solve equations, and the like, to produce an algebra of thought.
|
|
From:
report of George Boole (The Laws of Thought [1854]) by Keith Devlin - Goodbye Descartes Ch.3
|
|
A reaction:
The Stoics didn’t use any algebraic notation for their study of propositions, so Boole's idea launched full blown propositional logic, and the rest of modern logic followed. Nice one.
|
|
8686
|
Boole made logic more mathematical, with algebra, quantifiers and probability [Boole, by Friend]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boole (followed by Frege) began to turn logic from a branch of philosophy into a branch of mathematics. He brought an algebraic approach to propositions, and introduced the notion of a quantifier and a type of probabilistic reasoning.
|
|
From:
report of George Boole (The Laws of Thought [1854], 3.2) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics
|
|
A reaction:
The result was that logic not only became more mathematical, but also more specialised. We now have two types of philosopher, those steeped in mathematical logic and the rest. They don't always sing from the same songsheet.
|
|
22277
|
Boole's method was axiomatic, achieving economy, plus multiple interpretations [Boole, by Potter]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boole's work was an early example of the axiomatic method, whereby intellectual economy is achieved by studying a set of axioms in which the primitive terms have multiple interpretations.
|
|
From:
report of George Boole (The Laws of Thought [1854]) by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 02 'Boole'
|
|
A reaction:
Unclear about this. I suppose the axioms are just syntactic, and a range of semantic interpretations can be applied. Are De Morgan's Laws interpretations, or implications of the syntactic axioms? The latter, I think.
|
|
8983
|
If 'red' is vague, then membership of the set of red things is vague, so there is no set of red things [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sets have sharp boundaries, or are sharp objects; an object either definitely belongs to a set, or it does not. But 'red' is vague; there objects which are neither definitely red nor definitely not red. Hence there is no set of red things.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably that will entail that there IS a set of things which can be described as 'definitely red'. If we describe something as 'definitely having a hint of red about it', will that put it in a set? In fact will the applicability of 'definitely' do?
|
|
8986
|
We should abandon classifying by pigeon-holes, and classify around paradigms [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must reject the classical picture of classification by pigeon-holes, and think in other terms: classifying can be, and often is, clustering round paradigms.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
His conclusion to a discussion of the problem of vagueness, where it is identified with concepts which have no boundaries. Pigeon-holes are a nice exemplar of the Enlightenment desire to get everything right. I prefer Aristotle's categories, Idea 3311.
|
|
8984
|
If concepts are vague, people avoid boundaries, can't spot them, and don't want them [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Vague concepts are boundaryless, ...and the manifestations are an unwillingness to draw any such boundaries, the impossibility of identifying such boundaries, and needlessness and even disutility of such boundaries.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
People have a very fine-tuned notion of whether the sharp boundary of a concept is worth discussing. The interesting exception are legal people, who are often forced to find precision where everyone else hates it. Who deserves to inherit the big house?
|
|
8985
|
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in pairs, such as child/adult, hot/cold [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in systems of contraries: opposed pairs like child/adult, hot/cold, weak/strong, true/false, and complex systems of colour terms. ..Only a contrast with 'adult' will show what 'child' excludes.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
This might be expected. It all comes down to the sorites problem, of when one thing turns into something else. If it won't merge into another category, then presumably the isolated concept stays applicable (until reality terminates it? End of sheep..).
|