|
9226
|
If mathematical theories conflict, it may just be that they have different subject matter [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Unlike logic, in the case of mathematics there may be no genuine conflict between alternative theories: it is natural to think that different theories, if both consistent, are simply about different subjects.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Recent Debates on the A Priori [2005], 7)
|
|
A reaction:
For this reason Field places logic at the heart of questions about a priori knowledge, rather than mathematics. My intuitions make me doubt his proposal. Given the very simple basis of, say, arithmetic, I would expect all departments to connect.
|
|
15312
|
We get the idea of power by abstracting from ropes, magnets and electric shocks [Priestley]
|
|
Full Idea:
A rope sustains weight, a magnet attracts iron, a charged electrical jar gives a shock, and from these and other similar observations, we get the idea of power, universally and abstractly considered.
|
|
From:
Joseph Priestley (Theological and other works [1790], p.191), quoted by Harré,R./Madden,E.H. - Causal Powers 9.II.B
|
|
A reaction:
I agree with this, in that we appear to be observing powers directly, and are not observing something which can then be reduced to non-powers. Nature just can't be a set of inert structures, with forces 'imposed' on them.
|
|
15311
|
Attraction or repulsion are not imparted to matter, but actually constitute it [Priestley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Attraction or repulsion appear to me not to be properly what is imparted to matter, but what really makes it what it is, in so much that, without it, it would be nothing at all.
|
|
From:
Joseph Priestley (Theological and other works [1790], p.237), quoted by Harré,R./Madden,E.H. - Causal Powers 9.II.B
|
|
A reaction:
This is music to the ears of anyone who thinks that powers are the fundamentals of nature (like me).
|