Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'works', 'Causation in a Physical World' and 'Epistemic and Metaphysical Possibility'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

---

7 ideas

1. Philosophy / G. Scientific Philosophy / 1. Aims of Science

6782	Realism is the only philosophy of science that doesn't make the success of science a miracle [Putnam]
	Full Idea: Realism….is the only philosophy science which does not make the success of science a miracle.
	From: Hilary Putnam (works [1980]), quoted by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.4
	A reaction: This was from his earlier work; he became more pragmatist and anti-realist later. Personally I approve of the remark. The philosophy of science must certainly offer an explanation for its success. Truth seems the obvious explanation.

7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 4. Anti-realism

22181	Putnam says anti-realism is a bad explanation of accurate predictions [Putnam, by Okasha]
	Full Idea: Putnam's 'no miracle' argument says that being an anti-realist is akin to believing in miracles (because of the accurate predictons). …It is a plausibility argument - an inference to the best explanation.
	From: report of Hilary Putnam (works [1980]) by Samir Okasha - Philosophy of Science: Very Short Intro (2nd ed) 4
	A reaction: [not sure of ref] Putnam later backs off from this argument, but my personal realism rests on best explanation. Does anyone want to prefer an inferior explanation? The objection is that successful theories can turn out to be false. Phlogiston, ether.

10. Modality / A. Necessity / 6. Logical Necessity

12185	Logical necessity is epistemic necessity, which is the old notion of a priori [Edgington, by McFetridge]
	Full Idea: Edgington's position is that logical necessity is an epistemic notion: epistemic necessity which, she claims, is the old notion of the a priori. Like Kripke, she thinks this is two-way independent of metaphysical necessity.
	From: report of Dorothy Edgington (Epistemic and Metaphysical Possibility [1985]) by Ian McFetridge - Logical Necessity: Some Issues §1
	A reaction: [her paper was unpublished] She hence thinks an argument can be logically valid, while metaphysically its conclusion may not follow. Dubious, though I think I favour the view that logical necessity is underwritten by metaphysical necessity.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 1. Causation

8404	Explain single events by general rules, or vice versa, or probability explains both, or they are unconnected [Field,H]
	Full Idea: Some think singular causal claims should be explained in terms of general causal claims; some think the order should be reversed; some think a third thing (e.g. objective probability) will explain both; and some think they are only loosely connected.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 2)
	A reaction: I think Ducasse gives the best account, which is the second option, of giving singular causal claims priority. Probability (Mellor) strikes me as a non-starter, and the idea that they are fairly independent seems rather implausible.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 5. Direction of causation

8401	Physical laws are largely time-symmetric, so they make a poor basis for directional causation [Field,H]
	Full Idea: It is sometimes pointed out that (perhaps with a few minor exceptions) the fundamental physical laws are completely time-symmetric. If so, then if one is inclined to found causation on fundamental physical law, it isn't evident how directionality gets in.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
	A reaction: All my instincts tell me that causation is more fundamental than laws, and that directionality is there at the start. That, though, raises the nice question of how, if causation explains laws, the direction eventually gets left OUT!

8400	Identifying cause and effect is not just conventional; we explain later events by earlier ones [Field,H]
	Full Idea: It is not just that the earlier member of a cause-effect pair is conventionally called the cause; it is also connected with other temporal asymmetries that play an important role in our practices. We tend to explain later events in terms of earlier ones.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
	A reaction: We also interfere with the earlier one to affect the later one, and not vice versa (Idea 8363). I am inclined to think that attempting to explain the direction of causation is either pointless or hopeless.

8402	The only reason for adding the notion of 'cause' to fundamental physics is directionality [Field,H]
	Full Idea: Although it is true that the notion of 'cause' is not needed in fundamental physics, even statistical physics, still directionality considerations don't preclude this notion from being consistently added to fundamental physics.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
	A reaction: This only makes sense if the notion of cause already has directionality built into it, which I think is correct. The physicist might reply that they don't care about directionality, but the whole idea of an experiment seems to depend on it (Idea 8363).