|
14212
|
A consistent theory just needs one model; isomorphic versions will do too, and large domains provide those [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
A consistent theory is, by definition, one satisfied by some model; an isomorphic image of a model satisfies the same theories as the original model; to provide the making of an isomorphic image of any given model, a domain need only be large enough.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Model')
|
|
A reaction:
This is laying out the ground for Putnam's model theory argument in favour of anti-realism. If you are chasing the one true model of reality, then formal model theory doesn't seem to offer much encouragement.
|
|
12215
|
The existence of numbers is not a matter of identities, but of constituents of the world [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
On saying that a particular number exists, we are not saying that there is something identical to it, but saying something about its status as a genuine constituent of the world.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.168)
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at Frege's criterion of identity, which is to be an element in an identity relation, such as x = y. Fine suggests that this only gives a 'trivial' notion of existence, when he is interested in a 'thick' sense of 'exists'.
|
|
12209
|
The indispensability argument shows that nature is non-numerical, not the denial of numbers [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Arguments such as the dispensability argument are attempting to show something about the essentially non-numerical character of physical reality, rather than something about the nature or non-existence of the numbers themselves.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.160)
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at Hartry Field. If Quine was right, and we only believe in numbers because of our science, and then Field shows our science doesn't need it, then Fine would be wrong. Quine must be wrong, as well as Field.
|
|
12214
|
'Exists' is a predicate, not a quantifier; 'electrons exist' is like 'electrons spin' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The most natural reading of 'electrons exist' is that there are electrons while, on our view, the proper reading should be modeled on 'electrons spin', meaning every electron spins. 'Exists' should be treated as a predicate rather than a quantifier.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.167)
|
|
A reaction:
So existence IS a predicate (message to Kant). Dunno. Electrons have to exist in order to spin, but they don't have to exist in order to exist. But they don't have to exist to be 'dead'.
|
|
12217
|
For ontology we need, not internal or external views, but a view from outside reality [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
We need to straddle both of Carnap's internal and external views. It is only by standing outside of reality that we are able to occupy a standpoint from which the constitution of reality can be adequately described.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 4840! I thoroughly approve of this idea, which almost amounts to a Credo for the modern metaphysician. Since we can think outside our room, or our country, or our era, or our solar system, I think we can do what Fine is demanding.
|
|
14213
|
Anti-realists see the world as imaginary, or lacking joints, or beyond reference, or beyond truth [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
Anti-realists say the only world is imaginary, or only has the parts or classes or relations we divide it into, or doubt that reference to the world is possible, or doubt that our interpretations can achieve truth.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Anti-R')
|
|
A reaction:
[compression of a paragraph on anti-realism] Lewis is a thoroughgoing realist. A nice example of the rhetorical device of ridiculing an opponent by suggesting that they don't even know what they themselves believe.
|
|
14210
|
A gerrymandered mereological sum can be a mess, but still have natural joints [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
The mereological sum of the coffee in my cup, the ink in this sentence, a nearby sparrow, and my left shoe is a miscellaneous mess of an object, yet its boundaries are by no means unrelated to the joints of nature.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'What Might')
|
|
A reaction:
In that case they do, but if there are no atoms at the root of physics then presumably their could also be thoroughly jointless assemblages, involving probability distributions etc. Even random scattered atoms seem rather short of joints.
|
|
18284
|
Particulars can be verified or falsified, but general statements can only be falsified (conclusively) [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whereas particular reality statements are in principle completely verifiable or falsifiable, things are different for general reality statements: they can indeed be conclusively falsified, they can acquire a negative truth value, but not a positive one.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Two Problems of Epistemology [1932], p.256), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 18 'Laws'
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds like a logician's approach to science, but I prefer to look at coherence, where very little is actually conclusive, and one tinkers with the theory instead.
|
|
14209
|
Descriptive theories remain part of the theory of reference (with seven mild modifications) [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
Description theories of reference are supposed to have been well and truly refuted. I think not: ..it is still tenable with my seven points, and part of the truth of reference [7: rigidity, egocentric, tokens, causal, imperfect, indeterminate, families].
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Glob Desc')
|
|
A reaction:
(The bit at the end refers to his seven points, on p.59). He calls his basic proposal 'causal descriptivism', incorporating his seven slight modifications of traditional descriptivism about reference.
|