10 ideas
| 9540 | A 'value-assignment' (V) is when to each variable in the set V assigns either the value 1 or the value 0 [Hughes/Cresswell] |
| Full Idea: A 'value-assignment' (V) is when to each variable in the set V assigns either the value 1 or the value 0. | |
| From: GE Hughes/M Cresswell (An Introduction to Modal Logic [1968], Ch.1) | |
| A reaction: In the interpreted version of the logic, 1 and 0 would become T (true) and F (false). The procedure seems to be called nowadays a 'valuation'. |
| 9541 | The Law of Transposition says (P→Q) → (¬Q→¬P) [Hughes/Cresswell] |
| Full Idea: The Law of Transposition says that (P→Q) → (¬Q→¬P). | |
| From: GE Hughes/M Cresswell (An Introduction to Modal Logic [1968], Ch.1) | |
| A reaction: That is, if the consequent (Q) of a conditional is false, then the antecedent (P) must have been false. |
| 9543 | The rules preserve validity from the axioms, so no thesis negates any other thesis [Hughes/Cresswell] |
| Full Idea: An axiomatic system is most naturally consistent iff no thesis is the negation of another thesis. It can be shown that every axiom is valid, that the transformation rules are validity-preserving, and if a wff α is valid, then ¬α is not valid. | |
| From: GE Hughes/M Cresswell (An Introduction to Modal Logic [1968], Ch.1) | |
| A reaction: [The labels 'soundness' and 'consistency' seem interchangeable here, with the former nowadays preferred] |
| 9544 | A system is 'weakly' complete if all wffs are derivable, and 'strongly' if theses are maximised [Hughes/Cresswell] |
| Full Idea: To say that an axiom system is 'weakly complete' is to say that every valid wff of the system is derivable as a thesis. ..The system is 'strongly complete' if it cannot have any more theses than it has without falling into inconsistency. | |
| From: GE Hughes/M Cresswell (An Introduction to Modal Logic [1968], Ch.1) | |
| A reaction: [They go on to say that Propositional Logic is strongly complete, but Modal Logic is not] |
| 12899 | The timid student has knowledge without belief, lacking confidence in their correct answer [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I allow knowledge without belief, as in the case of the timid student who knows the answer but has no confidence that he has it right, and so does not believe what he knows. | |
| From: David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996], p.429) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Woozley 1953 for the timid student] I don't accept this example (since my views on knowledge are rather traditional, I find). Why would the student give that answer if they didn't believe it? Sustained timid correctness never happens. |
| 12897 | To say S knows P, but cannot eliminate not-P, sounds like a contradiction [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If you claim that S knows that P, and yet grant that S cannot eliminate a certain possibility of not-P, it certainly seems as if you have granted that S does not after all know that P. To speak of fallible knowledge just sounds contradictory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996], p.419) | |
| A reaction: Starting from this point, fallibilism seems to be a rather bold move. The only sensible response seems to be to relax the requirement that not-P must be eliminable. Best: in one epistemic context P, in another not-P. |
| 12898 | Justification is neither sufficient nor necessary for knowledge [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I don't agree that the mark of knowledge is justification, first because justification isn't sufficient - your true opinion that you will lose the lottery isn't knowledge, whatever the odds; and also not necessary - for what supports perception or memory? | |
| From: David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) | |
| A reaction: I don't think I agree. The point about the lottery is that an overwhelming reason will never get you to knowing that you won't win. But good reasons are coherent, not statistical. If perceptions are dubious, justification must be available. |
| 12895 | Knowing is context-sensitive because the domain of quantification varies [Lewis, by Cohen,S] |
| Full Idea: The context-sensitivity of 'knows' is a function of contextual restrictions on the domain of quantification. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) by Stewart Cohen - Contextualism Defended p.68 | |
| A reaction: I think the shifting 'domain of quantification' is one of the most interesting features of ordinary talk. Or, more plainly. 'what are you actually talking about?' is the key question in any fruitful dialogue. Sophisticated speakers tacitly shift domain. |
| 19562 | We have knowledge if alternatives are eliminated, but appropriate alternatives depend on context [Lewis, by Cohen,S] |
| Full Idea: S knows P if S's evidence eliminates every alternative. But the nature of the alternatives depends on context. So for Lewis, the context sensitivity of 'knows' is a function of contextual restrictions ln the domain of quantification. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) by Stewart Cohen - Contextualism Defended (and reply) 1 | |
| A reaction: A typical modern attempt to 'regiment' a loose term like 'context'. That said, I like the idea. I'm struck by how the domain varies during a conversation (as in 'what we are talking about'). Domains standardly contain 'objects', though. |
| 1556 | By nature people are close to one another, but culture drives them apart [Hippias] |
| Full Idea: I regard you all as relatives - by nature, not by convention. By nature like is akin to like, but convention is a tyrant over humankind and often constrains people to act contrary to nature. | |
| From: Hippias (fragments/reports [c.430 BCE]), quoted by Plato - Protagoras 337c8 |