Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'No Understanding without Explanation', 'The Status of Content' and 'Two Chief World Systems'

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

---

5 ideas

3. Truth / H. Deflationary Truth / 3. Minimalist Truth

6345	Minimalism is incoherent, as it implies that truth both is and is not a property [Boghossian, by Horwich]
	Full Idea: Boghossian argues that minimalism is incoherent because it says truth both is and is not a property; the essence of minimalism is that, unlike traditional theories, truth is not a property, yet properties are needed to explain the theory.
	From: report of Paul Boghossian (The Status of Content [1990]) by Paul Horwich - Truth (2nd edn) Post.8
	A reaction: I doubt whether this is really going to work as a demolition, because it seems to me that no philosophers are even remotely clear about what a property is. If properties are defined causally, it is not quite clear how truth would ever be a property.

11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 2. Understanding

14369	Understanding is a precondition, comes in degrees, is active, and holistic - unlike explanation [Strevens]
	Full Idea: Objectors to the idea that understanding requires explanation say that understanding is a precondition for explanation, that understanding comes in degrees, that understanding is active, and that it is holistic - all unlike explanations.
	From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], 4)
	A reaction: He works through these four objections and replies to them, in defence of the thesis in Idea 14365. I agree with Strevens on this.

14365	Scientific understanding is always the grasping of a correct explanation [Strevens]
	Full Idea: I defend what I call the 'simple view', that scientific understanding is that state produced, and only produced, by grasping a correct explanation.
	From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], Intro)
	A reaction: I like this because it clearly states what I take to be the view of Aristotle, and the key to understanding the whole of that philosopher's system. I take the view to be correct.

14368	We may 'understand that' the cat is on the mat, but not at all 'understand why' it is there [Strevens]
	Full Idea: 'Understanding why' is quite separate from 'understanding that': you might be exquisitely, incandescently aware of the cat's being on the mat without having the slightest clue how it got there. My topic is understanding why.
	From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], 2)
	A reaction: Can't we separate 'understand how' from 'understand why'? I may know that someone dropped a cat through my letterbox, but more understanding would still be required. (He later adds understanding 'with' a theory).

27. Natural Reality / A. Classical Physics / 1. Mechanics / b. Laws of motion

19673	Galileo mathematised movement, and revealed its invariable component - acceleration [Galileo, by Meillassoux]
	Full Idea: Galileo conceives of movement in mathematical terms. ...In doing so, he uncovered, beyond the variations of position and speed, the mathematical invariant of movement - that is to say, acceleration.
	From: report of Galileo Galilei (Two Chief World Systems [1632]) by Quentin Meillassoux - After Finitude; the necessity of contingency 5
	A reaction: That is a very nice advert for the mathematical physics which replaced the Aristotelian substantial forms. ...And yet, is acceleration some deep fact about nature, or a concept which is only needed if you insist on being mathematical?