80 ideas
19250 | Everything interesting should be recorded, with records that can be rearranged [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Everything worth notice is worth recording; and those records should be so made that they can readily be arranged, and particularly so that they can be rearranged. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], V) | |
A reaction: Yet another epigraph for my project! Peirce must have had a study piled with labelled notes, and he would have adored this database, at least in its theory. |
19228 | Sciences concern existence, but philosophy also concerns potential existence [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Philosophy differs from the special sciences in not confining itself to the reality of existence, but also to the reality of potential being. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: One might reply that sciences also concern potential being, if their output is universal generalisations (such as 'laws'). I take disposition and powers to be central to existence, which are hence of interest to sciences. |
19241 | An idea on its own isn't an idea, because they are continuous systems [Peirce] |
Full Idea: There is no such thing as an absolutely detached idea. It would be no idea at all. For an idea is itself a continuous system. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], III) | |
A reaction: This is the new anti-epigraph for this database. This idea is part of Peirce's idea that relations are the central feature of our grasp of the world. |
19227 | Philosophy is a search for real truth [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Philosophy differs from mathematics in being a search for real truth. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: This is important, coming from the founder of pragmatism, in rejecting the anti-realism which a lot of modern pragmatists seem to like. |
19218 | Metaphysics is pointless without exact modern logic [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The metaphysician who is not prepared to grapple with the difficulties of modern exact logic had better put up his shutters and go out of the trade. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: This announcement comes before Russell proclaimed mathematical logic to be the heart of metaphysics (though it is contemporary with Frege's work, of which Peirce was unaware). It places Peirce firmly in the analytic tradition. |
19229 | Metaphysics is the science of both experience, and its general laws and types [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics is the science of being, not merely as given in physical experience, but of being in general, its laws and types. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: I agree with this. The question then is whether such a science is possible. Dogmatic empiricists think not. Explanatory empiricists (me) think it is. |
19219 | Metaphysical reasoning is simple enough, but the concepts are very hard [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Metaphysical reasonings, such as they have hitherto been, have been simple enough for the most part. It is the metaphysical concepts which it is difficult to apprehend. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: Peirce is not, of course, saying that it is just conceptual, because for him science comes first. It is the woolly concepts that alienate some people from metaphysics. Metaphysicians should challenge the concepts they use much, much more! |
19231 | Metaphysics is turning into logic, and logic is becoming mathematics [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics is gradually and surely taking on the character of a logic. And finally seems destined to become more and more converted into mathematics. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: Remarkably prescient for 1898. I don't think Peirce knew of Frege (and certainly not when he wrote this). It shows that the revolution of Frege and Russell was in the air. It's there in Dedekind's writings. Peirce doesn't seem to be a logicist. |
15924 | Predicative definitions are acceptable in mathematics if they distinguish objects, rather than creating them? [Zermelo, by Lavine] |
Full Idea: On Zermelo's view, predicative definitions are not only indispensable to mathematics, but they are unobjectionable since they do not create the objects they define, but merely distinguish them from other objects. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite V.1 | |
A reaction: This seems to have an underlying platonism, that there are hitherto undefined 'objects' lying around awaiting the honour of being defined. Hm. |
19247 | The one unpardonable offence in reasoning is to block the route to further truth [Peirce] |
Full Idea: To set up a philosophy which barricades the road of further advance toward the truth is the one unpardonable offence in reasoning. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], IV) | |
A reaction: This is Popper's rather dubious objection to essentialism in science. Yet Popper tried to do the same thing with his account of induction. |
19246 | 'Holding for true' is either practical commitment, or provisional theory [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Whether or not 'truth' has two meanings, I think 'holding for true' has two kinds. One is practical holding for true which alone is entitled to the name of Belief; the other is the acceptance of a proposition, which in pure science is always provisional. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], IV) | |
A reaction: The problem here seems to be that we can act on a proposition without wholly believing it, like walking across thin ice. |
17608 | We take set theory as given, and retain everything valuable, while avoiding contradictions [Zermelo] |
Full Idea: Starting from set theory as it is historically given ...we must, on the one hand, restrict these principles sufficiently to exclude as contradiction and, on the other, take them sufficiently wide to retain all that is valuable in this theory. | |
From: Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908], Intro) | |
A reaction: Maddy calls this the one-step-back-from-disaster rule of thumb. Zermelo explicitly mentions the 'Russell antinomy' that blocked Frege's approach to sets. |
17607 | Set theory investigates number, order and function, showing logical foundations for mathematics [Zermelo] |
Full Idea: Set theory is that branch whose task is to investigate mathematically the fundamental notions 'number', 'order', and 'function', taking them in their pristine, simple form, and to develop thereby the logical foundations of all of arithmetic and analysis. | |
From: Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908], Intro) | |
A reaction: At this point Zermelo seems to be a logicist. Right from the start set theory was meant to be foundational to mathematics, and not just a study of the logic of collections. |
10870 | ZFC: Existence, Extension, Specification, Pairing, Unions, Powers, Infinity, Choice [Zermelo, by Clegg] |
Full Idea: Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms: Existence (at least one set); Extension (same elements, same set); Specification (a condition creates a new set); Pairing (two sets make a set); Unions; Powers (all subsets make a set); Infinity (set of successors); Choice | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Brian Clegg - Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable Ch.15 |
13012 | Zermelo published his axioms in 1908, to secure a controversial proof [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
Full Idea: Zermelo proposed his listed of assumptions (including the controversial Axiom of Choice) in 1908, in order to secure his controversial proof of Cantor's claim that ' we can always bring any well-defined set into the form of a well-ordered set'. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1 | |
A reaction: This is interesting because it sometimes looks as if axiom systems are just a way of tidying things up. Presumably it is essential to get people to accept the axioms in their own right, the 'old-fashioned' approach that they be self-evident. |
17609 | Set theory can be reduced to a few definitions and seven independent axioms [Zermelo] |
Full Idea: I intend to show how the entire theory created by Cantor and Dedekind can be reduced to a few definitions and seven principles, or axioms, which appear to be mutually independent. | |
From: Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908], Intro) | |
A reaction: The number of axioms crept up to nine or ten in subsequent years. The point of axioms is maximum reduction and independence from one another. He says nothing about self-evidence (though Boolos claimed a degree of that). |
13017 | Zermelo introduced Pairing in 1930, and it seems fairly obvious [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
Full Idea: Zermelo's Pairing Axiom superseded (in 1930) his original 1908 Axiom of Elementary Sets. Like Union, its only justification seems to rest on 'limitations of size' and on the 'iterative conception'. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.3 | |
A reaction: Maddy says of this and Union, that they seem fairly obvious, but that their justification is of prime importance, if we are to understand what the axioms should be. |
13015 | Zermelo used Foundation to block paradox, but then decided that only Separation was needed [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
Full Idea: Zermelo used a weak form of the Axiom of Foundation to block Russell's paradox in 1906, but in 1908 felt that the form of his Separation Axiom was enough by itself, and left the earlier axiom off his published list. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.2 | |
A reaction: Foundation turns out to be fairly controversial. Barwise actually proposes Anti-Foundation as an axiom. Foundation seems to be the rock upon which the iterative view of sets is built. Foundation blocks infinite descending chains of sets, and circularity. |
13486 | Not every predicate has an extension, but Separation picks the members that satisfy a predicate [Zermelo, by Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: Zermelo assumes that not every predicate has an extension but rather that given a set we may separate out from it those of its members satisfying the predicate. This is called 'separation' (Aussonderung). | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 3 |
13020 | The Axiom of Separation requires set generation up to one step back from contradiction [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
Full Idea: The most characteristic Zermelo axiom is Separation, guided by a new rule of thumb: 'one step back from disaster' - principles of set generation should be as strong as possible short of contradiction. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.4 | |
A reaction: Why is there an underlying assumption that we must have as many sets as possible? We are then tempted to abolish axioms like Foundation, so that we can have even more sets! |
19237 | Deduction is true when the premises facts necessarily make the conclusion fact true [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The question of whether a deductive argument is true or not is simply the question whether or not the facts stated in the premises could be true in any sort of universe no matter what be true without the fact stated in the conclusion being true likewise. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], III) | |
A reaction: A remarkably modern account, fitting the normal modern view of semantic consequence, and expressing the necessity in the validity in terms of something close to possible worlds. |
19256 | Our research always hopes that reality embodies the logic we are employing [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Every attempt to understand anything at least hopes that the very objects of study themselves are subject to a logic more or less identical with that which we employ. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], VIII) | |
A reaction: The idea that external objects might be subject to a logic has become very unfashionable since Frege, but I love the idea. I'm inclined to think that we derive our logic from the world, so I'm a bit more confident that Peirce. |
19238 | The logic of relatives relies on objects built of any relations (rather than on classes) [Peirce] |
Full Idea: In the place of the class ...the logic of relatives considers the system, which is composed of objects brought together by any kind of relations whatsoever. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], III) | |
A reaction: Peirce's logic of relations might support the purely structural view of reality defended by Ladyman and Ross. Modern logic standardly expresses its semantics in terms of set theory. Peirce pioneered relations in logic. |
13487 | In ZF, the Burali-Forti Paradox proves that there is no set of all ordinals [Zermelo, by Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: In Zermelo's set theory, the Burali-Forti Paradox becomes a proof that there is no set of all ordinals (so 'is an ordinal' has no extension). | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 3 |
18178 | For Zermelo the successor of n is {n} (rather than n U {n}) [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
Full Idea: For Zermelo the successor of n is {n} (rather than Von Neumann's successor, which is n U {n}). | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Naturalism in Mathematics I.2 n8 | |
A reaction: I could ask some naive questions about the comparison of these two, but I am too shy about revealing my ignorance. |
13027 | Zermelo believed, and Von Neumann seemed to confirm, that numbers are sets [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
Full Idea: Zermelo was a reductionist, and believed that theorems purportedly about numbers (cardinal or ordinal) are really about sets, and since Von Neumann's definitions of ordinals and cardinals as sets, this has become common doctrine. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.8 | |
A reaction: Frege has a more sophisticated take on this approach. It may just be an updating of the Greek idea that arithmetic is about treating many things as a unit. A set bestows an identity on a group, and that is all that is needed. |
9627 | Different versions of set theory result in different underlying structures for numbers [Zermelo, by Brown,JR] |
Full Idea: In Zermelo's set-theoretic definition of number, 2 is a member of 3, but not a member of 4; in Von Neumann's definition every number is a member of every larger number. This means they have two different structures. | |
From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by James Robert Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics Ch. 4 | |
A reaction: This refers back to the dilemma highlighted by Benacerraf, which was supposed to be the motivation for structuralism. My intuition says that the best answer is that they are both wrong. In a pattern, the nodes aren't 'members' of one another. |
19226 | We now know that mathematics only studies hypotheses, not facts [Peirce] |
Full Idea: It did not become clear to mathematicians before modern times that they study nothing but hypotheses without as pure mathematicians caring at all how the actual facts may be. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: 'Modern' here is 1898. As a logical principle this would seem to qualify as 'if-thenism' (see alphabetical themes). It's modern descendant might be modal structuralism (see Geoffrey Hellman). It take maths to be hypotheses abstracted from experience. |
19240 | Realism is the belief that there is something in the being of things corresponding to our reasoning [Peirce] |
Full Idea: If there is any reality, then it consists of this: that there is in the being of things something which corresponds to the process of reasoning. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], III) | |
A reaction: A nice definition of realism, a little different from usual. I belief that the normal logic of daily thought corresponds (in its rules and connectives) to the way the world is. We evaluate success in logic by truth-preservation. |
19239 | There may be no reality; it's just our one desperate hope of knowing anything [Peirce] |
Full Idea: What is reality? Perhaps there isn't any such thing at all. It is but a working hypothesis which we try, our one desperate forlorn hope of knowing anything. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], III) | |
A reaction: I'm not quite sure why the hope is 'forlorn'. We have no current reason to doubt that the hypothesis is working out extremely well. Lovely idea, though. |
6504 | For physicalists, the only relations are spatial, temporal and causal [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Spatial, temporal and causal relations are the only respectable candidates for relations for a physicalist. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], V.4) | |
A reaction: This seems to be true, and is an absolutely crucial principle upon which any respectable physicalist account of the world must be built. It means that physicalists must attempt to explain all mental events in causal terms. |
6520 | If reality just has relational properties, what are its substantial ontological features? [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Some thinkers claim the physical world consists just of relational properties - generally of active powers or fields; ..but an ontology of mutual influences is not an ontology at all unless the possessors of the influence have more substantial features. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3) | |
A reaction: I think this idea is one of the keys to wisdom. It is the same problem with functional explanations - you are left asking WHY this thing can have this particular function. Without the buck stopping at essences you are chasing your explanatory tail. |
19252 | Objective chance is the property of a distribution [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Chance, as an objective phenomenon, is a property of a distribution. ...In order to have any meaning, it must refer to some definite arrangement of all the things. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], VI) |
19232 | In ordinary language a conditional statement assumes that the antecedent is true [Peirce] |
Full Idea: In our ordinary use of language we always understand the range of possibility in such a sense that in some possible case the antecedent shall be true. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], II) | |
A reaction: Peirce is discussing Diodorus, and proposes the view nowadays defended by Edgington, though in the end Peirce defends the standard material conditional as simpler. I suspect that this discussion by Peirce is not well known. |
19223 | We act on 'full belief' in a crisis, but 'opinion' only operates for trivial actions [Peirce] |
Full Idea: 'Full belief' is willingness to upon a proposition in vital crises, 'opinion' is willingness to act on it in relatively insignificant affairs. But pure science has nothing at all to do with action. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: A nice clear statement of the pragmatic view of beliefs. It is not much help in distinguishing full belief about the solar system from mere opinion about remote galaxies. Ditto for historical events. |
6485 | When a red object is viewed, the air in between does not become red [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: When the form of red passes from an object to the eye, the air in between does not become red. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.2) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as a crucial and basic fact which must be faced by any philosopher offering a theory of perception. I would have thought it instantly eliminated any sort of direct or naïve realism. The quale of red is created by my brain. |
6521 | Representative realists believe that laws of phenomena will apply to the physical world [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: One thing which is meant by saying that the phenomenal world represents or resembles the transcendental physical world is that the scientific laws devised to apply to the former, if correct, also apply (at least approximately) to the latter. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3) | |
A reaction: This is not, of course, an argument, or a claim which can be easily substantiated, but it does seem to be a nice statement of a central article of faith for representative realists. The laws of the phenomenal world are the only ones we are going to get. |
6509 | Representative realists believe some properties of sense-data are shared by the objects themselves [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: A representative realist believes that at least some of the properties that are ostensively demonstrable in virtue of being exemplified in sense-data are of the same kind as some of those exemplified in physical objects. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VII.5) | |
A reaction: It is hard to pin down exactly what is being claimed here. Locke's primary qualities will obviously qualify, but could properties be 'exemplified' in sense-data without them actually being the same as those of the objects? |
6522 | Phenomenalism can be theistic (Berkeley), or sceptical (Hume), or analytic (20th century) [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: It is useful to identify three kinds of phenomenalism: theistic, sceptical and analytic; the first is represented by Berkeley, the second by Hume, and the third by most twentieth-century phenomenalists. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.4) | |
A reaction: In Britain the third group is usually represented by A.J.Ayer. My simple objection to all phenomenalists is that they are intellectual cowards because they won't venture to give an explanation of the phenomena which confront them. |
6502 | Can we reduce perception to acquisition of information, which is reduced to causation or disposition? [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Many modern physicalists first analyse perception as no more than the acquisition of beliefs or information through the senses, and then analyse belief and the possession of information in causal or dispositional terms. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], V.1) | |
A reaction: (He mentions Armstrong, Dretske and Pitcher). A reduction to dispositions implies behaviourism. This all sounds more like an eliminativist strategy than a reductive one. I would start by saying that perception is only information after interpretation. |
6513 | Would someone who recovered their sight recognise felt shapes just by looking? [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Molyneux's Problem is whether someone who was born blind and acquired sight would be able to recognise, on sight, which shapes were which; that is, would they see which shape was the one that felt so-and-so? | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VIII.7) | |
A reaction: (Molyneux wrote a letter to John Locke about this). It is a good question, and much discussed in modern times. My estimation is that the person would recognise the shapes. We are partly synaesthetic, and see sharpness as well as feeling it. |
6512 | Secondary qualities have one sensory mode, but primary qualities can have more [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Primary qualities and secondary qualities are often distinguished on the grounds that secondaries are restricted to one sensory modality, but primaries can appear in more. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VIII.7) | |
A reaction: This distinction seems to me to be accurate and important. It is not just that the two types are phenomenally different - it is that the best explanation is that the secondaries depend on their one sense, but the primaries are independent. |
6497 | We say objects possess no intrinsic secondary qualities because physicists don't need them [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: The idea that objects do not possess secondary qualities intrinsically rests on the thought that they do not figure in the physicist's account of the world; ..as they are causally idle, no purpose is served by attributing them to objects. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], III.1) | |
A reaction: On the whole I agree with this, but colours (for example) are not causally idle, as they seem to affect the behaviour of insects. They are properties which can only have a causal effect if there is a brain in their vicinity. Physicists ignore brains. |
6494 | If objects are not coloured, and neither are sense-contents, we are left saying that nothing is coloured [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: If there are good reasons for thinking that physical objects are not literally coloured, and one also refuses to attribute them to sense-contents, then one will have the bizarre theory (which has been recently adopted) that nothing is actually coloured. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.7) | |
A reaction: It seems to me that objects are not literally coloured, that the air in between does not become coloured, and that my brain doesn't turn a funny colour, so that only leaves colour as an 'interior' feature of certain brain states. That's how it is. |
6499 | Shape can be experienced in different ways, but colour and sound only one way [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Shape can be directly experienced by either touch or sight, which are subjectively different; but colour and sound can be directly experienced only through experiences which are subjectively like sight and hearing. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], III.1) | |
A reaction: This seems to be a key argument in support of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. It seems to me that the distinction may be challenged and questioned, but to deny it completely (as Berkeley and Hume do) is absurd. |
6500 | If secondary qualities match senses, would new senses create new qualities? [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: As secondary qualities are tailored to match senses, a proliferation of senses would lead to a proliferation of secondary qualities. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], III.1) | |
A reaction: One might reply that if we experienced, say, magnetism, we would just be discerning a new fine grained primary quality, not adding something new to the ontological stock of properties in the world. It is a matter of HOW we experience the magnetism. |
6484 | Most moderate empiricists adopt Locke's representative theory of perception [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: The representative theory of perception is found in Locke, and is adopted by most moderate empiricists. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.2) | |
A reaction: This is, I think, my own position. Anything less than fairly robust realism strikes me as being a bit mad (despite Berkeley's endless assertions that he is preaching common sense), and direct realism seems obviously false. |
6508 | Sense-data leads to either representative realism or phenomenalism or idealism [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: The sense-datum theorist is either a representative realist or a phenomenalist (with which we can classify idealism for present purposes). | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VII.5) | |
A reaction: The only alternative to these two positions seems to be some sort of direct realism. I class myself as a representative realist, as this just seems (after a very little thought about colour blindness) to be common sense. I'm open to persuasion. |
6480 | Sense-data do not have any intrinsic intentionality [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: I understand sense-data as having no intrinsic intentionality; that is, though it may suggest, by habit, things beyond it, in itself it possesses only sensible qualities which do not refer beyond themselves. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.1) | |
A reaction: This seems right, as the whole point of proposing sense-data was as something neutral between realism and anti-realism |
6482 | For idealists and phenomenalists sense-data are in objects; representative realists say they resemble objects [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: For idealists and phenomenalists sense-data are part of physical objects, for objects consist only of actual or actual and possible sense-data; representative realists say they just have an abstract and structural resemblance to objects. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.1) | |
A reaction: He puts Berkeley, Hume and Mill in the first group, and Locke in the second. Russell belongs in the second. The very fact that there can be two such different theories about the location of sense-data rather discredits the whole idea. |
6505 | Sense-data are rejected because they are a veil between us and reality, leading to scepticism [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Resistance to the sense-datum theory is inspired mainly by the fear that such data constitute a veil of perception which stands between the observer and the external world, threatening scepticism, or even solipsism. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VII.1) | |
A reaction: It is very intellectually dishonest to reject any theory because it leads to scepticism or relativism. This is a common failing among quite good professional philosophers. See Idea 241. |
6506 | 'Sense redly' sounds peculiar, but 'senses redly-squarely tablely' sounds far worse [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: 'Sense redly' sounds peculiar, but 'senses redly-squarely' or 'red-squarely' or 'senses redly-squarely-tablely' and other variants sound far worse. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VII.5) | |
A reaction: This is a comment on the adverbial theory, which is meant to replace representative theories based on sense-data. The problem is not that it sounds weird; it is that while plain red can be a mode of perception, being a table obviously can't. |
6507 | Adverbialism sees the contents of sense-experience as modes, not objects [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: The defining claim of adverbialism is that the contents of sense-experience are modes, not objects, of sensory activity. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VII.5) | |
A reaction: This seems quite a good account of simple 'modes' like colour, but not so good when you instantly perceive a house. It never seems wholly satisfactory to sidestep the question of 'what are you perceiving when you perceive red or square?' |
6511 | If there are only 'modes' of sensing, then an object can no more be red or square than it can be proud or lazy. [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: If only modes of sensing are ostensively available, ..then it is a category mistake to see any resemblance between what is available and properties of bodies; one could as sensibly say that a physical body is proud or lazy as that it is red or square. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], VII.5) | |
A reaction: This is an objection to the 'adverbial' theory of perception. It looks to me like a devastating objection, if the theory is meant to cover primary qualities as well as secondary. Red could be a mode of perception, but not square, surely? |
19253 | We talk of 'association by resemblance' but that is wrong: the association constitutes the resemblance [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Allying certain ideas like 'crimson' and 'scarlet' is called 'association by resemblance'. The name is not a good one, since it implies that resemblance causes association, while in point of fact it is the association which constitutes the resemblance. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], VII) | |
A reaction: I take it that Hume would have agreed with this. It is an answer to Russell's claim that 'resemblance' must itself be a universal. |
19224 | Scientists will give up any conclusion, if experience opposes it [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The scientific man is not in the least wedded to his conclusions. He risks nothing upon them. He stands ready to abandon one or all as experience opposes them. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: In the age of massive speculative research grants, the idea that 'he risks nothing upon them' is no longer true. Ditto for building aircraft and bridges, which are full of theoretical science. Notoriously, many scientists don't live up to Peirce's idea. |
19243 | If each inference slightly reduced our certainty, science would soon be in trouble [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Were every probable inference less certain than its premises, science, which piles inference upon inference, often quite deeply, would soon be in a bad way. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], IV) | |
A reaction: This seems to endorse Aristotle's picture of demonstration about scientific and practical things as being a form of precise logic, rather than progressive probabilities. Our generalisations may be more certain than the particulars they rely on. |
19225 | I classify science by level of abstraction; principles derive from above, and data from below [Peirce] |
Full Idea: I classify the sciences on Comte's general principles, in order of the abstractness of their objects, so that each science may largely rest for its principles upon those above it in the scale, while drawing its data in part from those below it. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: He places mathematics at the peak of abstraction. I assume physics is more abstract than biology. So chemistry draws principles from physics and data from biology. Not sure about this. Probably need to read Comte on it. |
19234 | 'Induction' doesn't capture Greek 'epagoge', which is singulars in a mass producing the general [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The word 'inductio' is Cicero's imitation of Aristotle's term 'epagoge'. It fails to convey the full significance of the Greek word, which implies the examples are arrayed and brought forward in a mass. 'The assault upon the generals by the singulars'. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], II) | |
A reaction: Interesting, thought I don't think there is enough evidence in Aristotle to get the Greek idea fully clear. |
19236 | Induction can never prove that laws have no exceptions [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Induction can never afford the slightest reason to think that a law is without an exception. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], II) | |
A reaction: Part of the general Humean doubts about induction, but very precisely stated, and undeniable. You can then give up on universal laws, or look for deeper reasons to justify your conviction that there are no exceptions. E.g. observe mass, or Higgs Boson. |
19251 | The worst fallacy in induction is generalising one recondite property from a sample [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The most dangerous fallacy of inductive reasoning consists in examining a sample, finding some recondite property in it, and concluding at once that it belongs to the whole collection. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], V) | |
A reaction: The point, I take it, is not that you infer that the whole collection has all the properties of the sample, but that some 'recondite' or unusual property is sufficiently unusual to be treated as general. |
19235 | How does induction get started? [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Induction can never make a first suggestion. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], II) | |
A reaction: This seems to lead to the general modern problem of the 'theory-laden' nature of observation. You don't see anything at all without some idea of what you are looking for. How do you spot the 'next instance'. Instance of what? Nice. |
6515 | An explanation presupposes something that is improbable unless it is explained [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Any search for an explanation presupposes that there is something in need of an explanation - that is, something which is improbable unless explained. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3) | |
A reaction: Elementary enough, but it underlines the human perspective of all explanations. I may need an explanation of baseball, where you don't. |
6517 | If all possibilities are equal, order seems (a priori) to need an explanation - or does it? [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: The fact that order requires an explanation seems to be an a priori principle; ..we assume all possibilities are equally likely, and so no striking regularities should emerge; the sceptic replies that a highly ordered sequence is as likely as any other. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3) | |
A reaction: An independent notion of 'order' is required. If I write down '14356', and then throw 1 4 3 5 6 on a die, the match is the order; instrinsically 14356 is nothing special. If you threw the die a million times, a run of six sixes seems quite likely. |
19222 | Men often answer inner 'whys' by treating unconscious instincts as if they were reasons [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Men many times fancy that they act from reason, when the reasons they attribute to themselves are nothing but excuses which unconscious instinct invents to satisfy the teasing 'whys' of the ego. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: A strikely modern thought, supported by a lot of modern neuro-science and psychology. It is crucial to realise that we don't have to accept the best explanation we can think of. |
19220 | We may think animals reason very little, but they hardly ever make mistakes! [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Those whom we are so fond of referring to as the 'lower animals' reason very little. Now I beg you to observe that those beings very rarely commit a mistake, while we ---- ! | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: We might take this as pessimism about reason, but I would take it as inviting a much broader view of rationality. I think nearly all animal behaviour is highly rational. Are animals 'sensible' in what they do? Their rationality is unadventurous. |
6481 | If intentional states are intrinsically about other things, what are their own properties? [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Intentional states are mysterious things; if they are intrinsically about other things, what properties, if any, do they possess intrinsically? | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.1) | |
A reaction: A very nice question, which I suspect to be right at the heart of the tendency towards externalist accounts of the mind. Since you can only talk about the contents of the thoughts, you can't put forward a decent internalist account of what is going on. |
19255 | Generalisation is the great law of mind [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The generalising tendency is the great law of mind. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], VII) | |
A reaction: How else could a small and compact mind get a grip on a vast and diverse reality? This must even apply to inarticulate higher animals. |
19242 | Generalization is the true end of life [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Generalization, the spelling out of continuous systems, in thought, in sentiment, in deed, is the true end of life. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], III) | |
A reaction: I take understanding to be the true aim of life, and full grasp of particulars (e.g. of particular people) is as necessary as generalisation. This is still a very nice bold idea. |
19249 | 'Know yourself' is not introspection; it is grasping how others see you [Peirce] |
Full Idea: 'Know thyself' does not mean instrospect your soul. It means see yourself as others would see you if they were intimate enough with you. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], V) | |
A reaction: When it comes to anger management, I would have thought that introspection had some use. You can see a tantrum coming before even your intimates can. Nice disagreement with Sartre! (Idea 7123) |
19257 | Whatever is First must be sentient [Peirce] |
Full Idea: I think that what is First is ipso facto sentient. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], VIII) | |
A reaction: He doesn't mention Leibniz's monads, but that looks like the ancestor of Peirce's idea. He doesn't make clear (here) how far he would take the idea. I would just say that whatever is 'First' must be active rather than passive. |
6503 | Physicalism cannot allow internal intentional objects, as brain states can't be 'about' anything [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: It is generally conceded by reductive physicalists that a state of the brain cannot be intrinsically about anything, for intentionality is not an intrinsic property of anything, so there can be no internal objects for a physicalist. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], V.4) | |
A reaction: Perhaps it is best to say that 'aboutness' is not a property of physics. We may say that a brain state 'represents' something, because the something caused the brain state, but representations have to be recognised |
19248 | Reasoning involves observation, experiment, and habituation [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The mental operations concerning in reasoning are three. The first is Observation; the second is Experimentation; and the third is Habituation. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], V) | |
A reaction: I like the breadth of this. Even those who think scientific reasoning has priority over logic (as I do, thinking of it as the evaluation of evidence, with Sherlock Holmes as its role model) will be surprised to finding observation and habituation there. |
19221 | Everybody overrates their own reasoning, so it is clearly superficial [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The very fact that everybody so ridiculously overrates his own reasoning, is sufficient to show how superficial the faculty is. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: A nice remark. The obvious counter-thought is that the collective reasoning of mankind really has been rather impressive, even though people haven't yet figured out how to live at peace with one another. |
19233 | Indexicals are unusual words, because they stimulate the hearer to look around [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Words like 'this', 'that', 'I', 'you', enable us to convey meanings which words alone are incompetent to express; they stimulate the hearer to look about him. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], II) | |
A reaction: Peirce was once of the first to notice the interest of indexicals, and this is a very nice comment on them. A word like 'Look!' isn't like the normal flow of verbiage, and may be the key to indexicals. |
19230 | People should follow what lies before them, and is within their power [Peirce] |
Full Idea: Each person ought to select some definite duty that clearly lies before him and is well within his power as the special task of his life. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], I) | |
A reaction: I like that. Note especially that it should be 'well' within his power. Note also that this is a 'duty', and not just a friendly suggestion. Not sure what the basis of the duty is. |
19245 | We are not inspired by other people's knowledge; a sense of our ignorance motivates study [Peirce] |
Full Idea: It is not the man who thinks he knows it all, that can bring other men to feel their need for learning, and it is only a deep sense that one is miserably ignorant that can spur one on in the toilsome path of learning. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], IV) |
6519 | Locke's solidity is not matter, because that is impenetrability and hardness combined [Robinson,H] |
Full Idea: Notoriously, Locke's filler for Descartes's geometrical matter, solidity, will not do, for that quality collapses on examination into a composite of the dispositional-cum-relational propery of impenetrability, and the secondary quality of hardness. | |
From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3) | |
A reaction: I would have thought the problem was that 'matter is solidity' turns out on analysis to be a tautology. We have a handful of nearly synonymous words for matter and our experiences of it, but they boil down to some 'given' thing for which we lack words. |
19244 | Chemists rely on a single experiment to establish a fact; repetition is pointless [Peirce] |
Full Idea: The chemist contents himself with a single experiment to establish any qualitative fact, because he knows there is such a uniformity in the behavior of chemical bodies that another experiment would be a mere repetition of the first in every respect. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], IV) | |
A reaction: I take it this endorses my 'Upanishads' view of natural kinds - that for each strict natural kind, if you've seen one you've them all. This seems to fit atoms and molecules, but only roughly fits tigers. |
19254 | Our laws of nature may be the result of evolution [Peirce] |
Full Idea: We may suppose that the laws of nature are results of an evolutionary process. ...But this evolution must proceed according to some principle: and this principle will itself be of the nature of a law. | |
From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], VII) | |
A reaction: Maybe I've missed something, but this seems a rather startling idea that doesn't figure much in modern discussions of laws of nature. Lee Smolin's account of evolving universes comes to mind. |