Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Causality: Reductionism versus Realism', 'The Lagoon: how Aristotle invented science' and 'Questions on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics'

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

---

4 ideas

1. Philosophy / C. History of Philosophy / 2. Ancient Philosophy / b. Pre-Socratic philosophy

21355	The Pre-Socratics are not simple naturalists, because they do not always 'leave the gods out' [Leroi]
	Full Idea: The problem with making naturalism the hallmark of Pre-Socratic thought ...is that they do not always 'leave the gods out'; the Divine can usually be found lurking somewhere is their cosmologies.
	From: Armand Marie LeRoi (The Lagoon: how Aristotle invented science [2014], 007)
	A reaction: An important observation. I've been guilty of this simplistic view. We tend to ignore the religious fragments, or we possess so little that we have no idea where religion figured in their accounts.

12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 2. Qualities in Perception / b. Primary/secondary

16726	Why can't we deduce secondary qualities from primary ones, if they cause them? [Buridan]
	Full Idea: The entire difficulty in this question is why through a knowledge of the primary tangible qualities we cannot come to a knowledge of flavors or odors, since these are their causes, since we often go from knowledge of causes to knowing their effects.
	From: Jean Buridan (Questions on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics [1344], I.28c), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 22.2
	A reaction: He is commenting on Idea 16725. Still a nice puzzle in the philosophy of mind. Will neuroscientists ever be able to infer to actual character of some quale, just from the structures of the neurons?

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation

8416	Reductionists can't explain accidents, uninstantiated laws, probabilities, or the existence of any laws [Tooley]
	Full Idea: Reductionist accounts of causation cannot distinguish laws from accidental uniformities, cannot allow for basic uninstantiated laws, can't explain probabilistic laws, and cannot even demonstrate the existence of laws.
	From: Michael Tooley (Causality: Reductionism versus Realism [1990], 2)
	A reaction: I am tempted to say that this is so much the worse for the idea of laws. Extensive regularities only occur for a reason. Probabilities aren't laws. Hypothetical facts will cover uninstantiated laws. Laws are just patterns.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 8. Particular Causation / e. Probabilistic causation

8418	Quantum physics suggests that the basic laws of nature are probabilistic [Tooley]
	Full Idea: Quantum physics seems to lend strong support to the idea that the basic laws of nature may well be probabilistic.
	From: Michael Tooley (Causality: Reductionism versus Realism [1990], 3.2.1)
	A reaction: Groan. Quantum physics should be outlawed from all philosophical discussions. The scientists don't understand it themselves. I'm certainly not going to build my worldview on it. I don't accept that these probabilities could count as 'laws'.