|
9354
|
Why should necessities only be knowable a priori? That Hesperus is Phosporus is known empirically [Devitt]
|
|
Full Idea:
Why should we accept that necessities can only be known a priori? Prima facie, some necessities are known empirically; for example, that water is necessarily H2O, and that Hesperus is necessarily Phosphorus.
|
|
From:
Michael Devitt (There is no a Priori [2005], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
An important question, whatever your view. If the only thing we can know a priori is necessities, it doesn't follow that necessities can only be known a priori. It gets interesting if we say that some necessities can never be known a priori.
|
|
9353
|
We explain away a priori knowledge, not as directly empirical, but as indirectly holistically empirical [Devitt]
|
|
Full Idea:
We have no need to turn to an a priori explanation of our knowledge of mathematics and logic. Our intuitions that this knowledge is not justified in some direct empirical way is preserved. It is justified in an indirect holistic way.
|
|
From:
Michael Devitt (There is no a Priori [2005], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
I think this is roughly the right story, but the only way it will work is if we have some sort of theory of abstraction, which gets us up the ladder of generalisations to the ones which, it appears, are necessarily true.
|
|
12128
|
In theory change, words shift their natural reference, so the theories are incommensurable [Kuhn]
|
|
Full Idea:
In transitions between theories words change their meanings or applicability. Though most of the signs are used before and after a revolution - force, mass, cell - the ways they attach to nature has changed. Successive theories are thus incommensurable.
|
|
From:
Thomas S. Kuhn (Reflections on my Critics [1970], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
A very nice statement of the view, from the horse's mouth. A great deal of recent philosophy has been implicitly concerned with meeting Kuhn's challenge, by providing an account of reference that doesn't have such problems.
|