24 ideas
| 17641 | Discoveries in mathematics can challenge philosophy, and offer it a new foundation [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Any new discovery as to mathematical method and principles is likely to upset a great deal of otherwise plausible philosophising, as well as to suggest a new philosophy which will be solid in proportion as its foundations in mathematics are securely laid. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.283) | |
| A reaction: This is a manifesto for modern analytic philosophy. I'm not convinced, especially if a fictionalist view of maths is plausible. What Russell wants is rigour, but there are other ways of getting that. Currently I favour artificial intelligence. |
| 17638 | If one proposition is deduced from another, they are more certain together than alone [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Two obvious propositions of which one can be deduced from the other both become more certain than either in isolation; thus in a complicated deductive system, many parts of which are obvious, the total probability may become all but absolute certainty. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.279) | |
| A reaction: Thagard picked this remark out, in support of his work on coherence. |
| 17632 | Non-contradiction was learned from instances, and then found to be indubitable [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The law of contradiction must have been originally discovered by generalising from instances, though, once discovered, it was found to be quite as indubitable as the instances. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.274) |
| 12204 | The logic of metaphysical necessity is S5 [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: It is a widely accepted thesis that the logic of metaphysical necessity is S5. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §5) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt goes on to defend this standard view (against Dummett's defence of S4). The point, I take it, is that one can only assert that something is 'true in all possible worlds' only when the worlds are all accessible to one another. |
| 12195 | Soundness in argument varies with context, and may be achieved very informally indeed [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: Our ordinary standards for deeming arguments to be sound vary greatly from context to context. Even the package tourist's syllogism ('It's Tuesday, so this is Belgium') may meet the operative standards for soundness. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) | |
| A reaction: No doubt one could spell out the preconceptions of package tourist reasoning, and arrive at the logical form of the implication which is being offered. |
| 12199 | There is a modal element in consequence, in assessing reasoning from suppositions [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: There is a modal element in consequence, in its applicability to assessing reasoning from suppositions. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) |
| 12201 | We reject deductions by bad consequence, so logical consequence can't be deduction [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A rule is to be rejected if it enables us to deduce from some premisses a purported conclusion that does not follow from them in the broad sense. The idea that deductions answer to consequence is incomprehensible if consequence consists in deducibility. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) |
| 12194 | Contradictions include 'This is red and not coloured', as well as the formal 'B and not-B' [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: Overt contradictions include formal contradictions of form 'B and not B', but I also take them to include 'This is red all over and green all over' and 'This is red and not coloured'. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) |
| 12198 | Geometrical axioms in logic are nowadays replaced by inference rules (which imply the logical truths) [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The geometrical style of formalization of logic is now little more than a quaint anachronism, largely because it fails to show logical truths for what they are: simply by-products of rules of inference that are applicable to suppositions. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §1) | |
| A reaction: This is the rejection of Russell-style axiom systems in favour of Gentzen-style natural deduction systems (starting from rules). Rumfitt quotes Dummett in support. |
| 17629 | Which premises are ultimate varies with context [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Premises which are ultimate in one investigation may cease to be so in another. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.273) |
| 17630 | The sources of a proof are the reasons why we believe its conclusion [Russell] |
| Full Idea: In mathematics, except in the earliest parts, the propositions from which a given proposition is deduced generally give the reason why we believe the given proposition. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.273) |
| 17640 | Finding the axioms may be the only route to some new results [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The premises [of a science] ...are pretty certain to lead to a number of new results which could not otherwise have been known. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.282) | |
| A reaction: I identify this as the 'fruitfulness' that results when the essence of something is discovered. |
| 17627 | It seems absurd to prove 2+2=4, where the conclusion is more certain than premises [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It is an apparent absurdity in proceeding ...through many rather recondite propositions of symbolic logic, to the 'proof' of such truisms as 2+2=4: for it is plain that the conclusion is more certain than the premises, and the supposed proof seems futile. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.272) | |
| A reaction: Famously, 'Principia Mathematica' proved this fact at enormous length. I wonder if this thought led Moore to his common sense view of his own hand - the conclusion being better than the sceptical arguments? |
| 17628 | Arithmetic was probably inferred from relationships between physical objects [Russell] |
| Full Idea: When 2 + 2 =4 was first discovered, it was probably inferred from the case of sheep and other concrete cases. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.272) |
| 14532 | A distinctive type of necessity is found in logical consequence [Rumfitt, by Hale/Hoffmann,A] |
| Full Idea: Rumfitt argues that there is a distinctive notion of necessity implicated in the notion of logical consequence. | |
| From: report of Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010]) by Bob Hale/ Aviv Hoffmann - Introduction to 'Modality' 2 |
| 12200 | A logically necessary statement need not be a priori, as it could be unknowable [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: There is no reason to suppose that any statement that is logically necessary (in the present sense) is knowable a priori. ..If a statement is logically necessary, its negation will yield a contradiction, but that does not imply that someone could know it. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) | |
| A reaction: This remark is aimed at Dorothy Edgington, who holds the opposite view. Rumfitt largely defends McFetridge's view (q.v.). |
| 12193 | Logical necessity is when 'necessarily A' implies 'not-A is contradictory' [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: By the notion of 'logical necessity' I mean that there is a sense of 'necessary' for which 'It is necessary that A' implies and is implied by 'It is logically contradictory that not A'. ...From this, logical necessity is implicated in logical consequence. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt expresses a commitment to classical logic at this point. We will need to be quite sure what we mean by 'contradiction', which will need a clear notion of 'truth'.... |
| 12202 | Narrow non-modal logical necessity may be metaphysical, but real logical necessity is not [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: While Fine suggests defining a narrow notion of logical necessity in terms of metaphysical necessity by 'restriction' (to logical truths that can be defined in non-modal terms), this seems unpromising for broad logical necessity, which is modal. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] He cites Kit Fine 2002. Rumfitt glosses the non-modal definitions as purely formal. The metaphysics lurks somewhere in the proof. |
| 12203 | If a world is a fully determinate way things could have been, can anyone consider such a thing? [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A world is usually taken to be a fully determinate way that things could have been; but then one might seriously wonder whether anyone is capable of 'considering' such a thing at all. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §4) | |
| A reaction: This has always worried me. If I say 'maybe my coat is in the car', I would hate to think that I had to be contemplating some entire possible world (including all the implications of my coat not being on the hat stand). |
| 17637 | The most obvious beliefs are not infallible, as other obvious beliefs may conflict [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Even where there is the highest degree of obviousness, we cannot assume that we are infallible - a sufficient conflict with other obvious propositions may lead us to abandon our belief, as in the case of a hallucination afterwards recognised as such. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.279) | |
| A reaction: This approach to fallibilism seems to arise from the paradox that undermined Frege's rather obvious looking axioms. After Peirce and Russell, fallibilism has become a secure norm of modern thought. |
| 17639 | Believing a whole science is more than believing each of its propositions [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Although intrinsic obviousness is the basis of every science, it is never, in a fairly advanced science, the whole of our reason for believing any one proposition of the science. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.279) |
| 17631 | Induction is inferring premises from consequences [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The inferring of premises from consequences is the essence of induction. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.274) | |
| A reaction: So induction is just deduction in reverse? Induction is transcendental deduction? Do I deduce the premises from observing a lot of white swans? Hm. |
| 468 | Musical performance can reveal a range of virtues [Damon of Ath.] |
| Full Idea: In singing and playing the lyre, a boy will be likely to reveal not only courage and moderation, but also justice. | |
| From: Damon (fragments/reports [c.460 BCE], B4), quoted by (who?) - where? |
| 17633 | The law of gravity has many consequences beyond its grounding observations [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The law of gravitation leads to many consequences which could not be discovered merely from the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.275) |