14 ideas
13152 | We can talk of 'innumerable number', about the infinite points on a line [Newton] |
Full Idea: If any man shall take the words number and sum in a larger sense, to understand things which are numberless and sumless (such as the infinite points on a line), I could allow him the contradictious phrase 'innumerable number' without absurdity. | |
From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1693.02.25) | |
A reaction: [compressed] I take the key point here to be the phrase of taking number 'in a larger sense'. Like the word 'atom' in physics, the word 'number' retains its traditional reference, but has considerably shifted its scope. Amateurs must live with this. |
13151 | Not all infinites are equal [Newton] |
Full Idea: It is an error that all infinites are equal. | |
From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1693.01.17) | |
A reaction: There follows a discussion of the mathematicians' view of infinity. Cantor was not the first to notice that there is more than one sort of of infinity. |
19718 | Indefeasibility does not imply infallibility [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Infallibility does not follow from indefeasibility. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Significance') | |
A reaction: If very little evidence exists then this could clearly be the case. It is especially true of historical and archaeological evidence. |
19717 | Can a defeater itself be defeated? [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Can the original justification of a belief be regained through a successful defeat of a defeater? | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Defeater-Defs') | |
A reaction: [Jäger 2005 addresses this] I would have thought the answer is yes. I aspire to coherent justifications, so I don't see justifications as a chain of defeat and counter-defeat, but as collective groups of support and challenge. |
19716 | Simple reliabilism can't cope with defeaters of reliably produced beliefs [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: An unmodified reliabilism does not accommodate defeaters, and surely there can be defeaters against reliably produced beliefs? | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Defeaters') | |
A reaction: [He cites Bonjour 1980] Reliabilism has plenty of problems anyway, since a generally reliable process can obviously occasionally produce a bad result. 20:20 vision is not perfect vision. Internalist seem to like defeaters. |
19715 | You can 'rebut' previous beliefs, 'undercut' the power of evidence, or 'reason-defeat' the truth [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: There are 'rebutting' defeaters against the truth of a previously justified belief, 'undercutting' defeaters against the power of the evidence, and 'reason-defeating' defeaters against the truth of the reason for the belief. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'How') | |
A reaction: That is (I think) that you can defeat the background, the likelihood, or the truth. He cites Pollock 1986, and implies that these are standard distinctions about defeaters. |
19713 | Defeasibility theory needs to exclude defeaters which are true but misleading [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Advocates of the defeasibility theory have tried to exclude true pieces of information that are misleading defeaters. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'What') | |
A reaction: He gives as an example the genuine news of a claim that the suspect has a twin. |
19714 | Knowledge requires that there are no facts which would defeat its justification [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: The 'defeasibility theory' of knowledge claims that knowledge is only present if there are no facts that - if they were known - would be genuine defeaters of the relevant justification. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'What') | |
A reaction: Something not right here. A genuine defeater would ensure the proposition was false, so it would simply fail the truth test. So we need a 'defeater' for a truth, which must therefore by definition be misleading. Many qualifications have to be invoked. |
19719 | 'Moderate' foundationalism has basic justification which is defeasible [Grundmann] |
Full Idea: Theories that combine basic justification with the defeasibility of this justification are referred to as 'moderate' foundationalism. | |
From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Significance') | |
A reaction: I could be more sympathetic to this sort of foundationalism. But it begins to sound more like Neurath's boat (see Quine) than like Descartes' metaphor of building foundations. |
6316 | We translate in a way that makes the largest possible number of statements true [Wilson,NL] |
Full Idea: We select as designatum that individual which will make the largest possible number of statements true. | |
From: N.L. Wilson (Substances without Substrata [1959]), quoted by Willard Quine - Word and Object II.§13 n | |
A reaction: From the Quine's reference, it sounds as if Wilson was the originator of the well-known principle of charity, later taken up by Davidson. If so, he should be famous, because it strikes me as a piece of fundamental and important wisdom. |
15863 | The principles of my treatise are designed to fit with a belief in God [Newton] |
Full Idea: When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men, for the belief of a deity. | |
From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1692.12.10) | |
A reaction: Harré quotes this, and it shows that the rather passive view of nature Newton developed was to be supplemented by the active power of God. Without God, we need a more active view of nature. |
8340 | I do not pretend to know the cause of gravity [Newton] |
Full Idea: You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent in matter. Pray do no ascribe that notion to me; for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know. | |
From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1693.01.17) | |
A reaction: I take science to be a two-stage operation - first we discern the regularities, and then we explain them. Evolution was spotted, then explained by Darwin. Cancer from cigarettes was spotted, but hasn't been explained. Regularity is the beginning. |
13150 | The motions of the planets could only derive from an intelligent agent [Newton] |
Full Idea: The motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone, but were impressed by an intelligent agent. | |
From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1692.12.10) | |
A reaction: He is writing to a cleric, but seems to be quite sincere about this. Elsewhere he just says he doesn't know what causes gravity. |
12178 | That gravity should be innate and essential to matter is absurd [Newton] |
Full Idea: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter ...is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. | |
From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1693.02.25) | |
A reaction: He is replying to some sermons, and he pays vague lip service to a possible divine force. Nevertheless, this is thoroughgoing anti-essentialism, and he talks of external 'laws' in the next sentence. Newton still sought the cause of gravity. |