|
8207
|
The quest for simplicity drove scientists to posit new entities, such as molecules in gases [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is the quest for system and simplicity that has kept driving the scientist to posit further entities as values of his variables. By positing molecules, Boyles' law of gases could be assimilated into a general theory of bodies in motion.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (On Multiplying Entities [1974], p.262)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting that a desire for simplicity might lead to multiplications of entities. In fact, I presume molecules had been proposed elsewhere in science, and were adopted in gas-theory because they were thought to exist, not because simplicity is nice.
|
|
8208
|
In arithmetic, ratios, negatives, irrationals and imaginaries were created in order to generalise [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
In classical arithmetic, ratios were posited to make division generally applicable, negative numbers to make subtraction generally applicable, and irrationals and finally imaginaries to make exponentiation generally applicable.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (On Multiplying Entities [1974], p.263)
|
|
A reaction:
This is part of Quine's proposal (c.f. Idea 8207) that entities have to be multiplied in order to produce simplicity. He is speculating. Maybe they are proposed because they are just obvious, and the generality is a nice side-effect.
|
|
3159
|
Beliefs and desires aren't real; they are prediction techniques [Dennett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Intentional systems don't really have beliefs and desires, but one can explain and predict their behaviour by ascribing beliefs and desires to them. This strategy is pragmatic, not right or wrong.
|
|
From:
Daniel C. Dennett (Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology [1978], p.7?)
|
|
A reaction:
If the ascription of beliefs and desires explains behaviour, then that is good grounds for thinking they might be real features of the brain, and even if that is not so, they are real enough as abstractions from brain events, like the 'economic climate'.
|
|
23279
|
It is important that a person can change their character, and not just be successive 'selves' [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
I want to emphasise the basic importance of the ordinary idea of a self or person which undergoes changes of character, as opposed to dissolving a changing person into a series of 'selves'.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], II)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] He mentions Derek Parfit for the rival view. Williams has the Aristotelian view, that a person has an essential nature, which endures through change, and explains that change. But that needs some non-essential character traits.
|
|
23278
|
For utilitarians states of affairs are what have value, not matter who produced them [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
The basic bearer of value for Utilitarianism is the state of affairs, and hence, when the relevant causal differences have been allowed for, it cannot make any further difference who produces a given state of affairs.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], I)
|
|
A reaction:
Which is morally better, that I water your bed of flowers, or that it rains? Which is morally better, that I water them from love, or because you threaten me with a whip?
|