29 ideas
| 19066 | Philosophy aims to understand the world, through ordinary experience and science [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy is an attempt to understand the world, as it is revealed to us both in our ordinary experience and by the discoveries and theories of science. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.311) | |
| A reaction: I don't see a sharp division between 'ordinary' and 'scientific'. I really like this idea, first because it makes 'understanding' central, and second because it wants both revelations. In discussing matter and time, there is too much emphasis on science. |
| 19067 | A successful proof requires recognition of truth at every step [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: For a demonstration to be cogent it is necessary that the passage from step to step involve a recognition of truth at each line. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.313) | |
| A reaction: Dummett cited Quine (esp. 1970) as having an almost entirely syntactic view of logic. Rumfitt points out that logic can move validly from one falsehood to another. Even a 'proof' might detour into falsehood, but it would not be a 'canonical' proof! |
| 19060 | Truth-tables are dubious in some cases, and may be a bad way to explain connective meaning [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: It is arguable whether two-valued truth tables give correct meanings for certain sentential operators, and even whether they constitute legitimate explanations of any possible sentential operators. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.294) | |
| A reaction: See 'Many-valued logic' for examples of non-binary truth tables. Presumably logicians should aspire to make their semantics precise, as well as their syntax. |
| 11066 | Deduction is justified by the semantics of its metalanguage [Dummett, by Hanna] |
| Full Idea: For Dummett the semantics of the metalanguage is the external and objective source of the justification of deduction. | |
| From: report of Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973]) by Robert Hanna - Rationality and Logic 3.4 | |
| A reaction: This is offered as an answer to the Lewis Carroll problem that justifying deduction seems to need deduction, thus leading to a regress. [There is a reply to Dummett by Susan Haack] |
| 19058 | Syntactic consequence is positive, for validity; semantic version is negative, with counterexamples [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: A plausible account is that the syntactic notion of consequence is for positive results, that some form of argument is valid; the semantic notion is required for negative results, that some argument is invalid, because a counterexample can be found. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.292) | |
| A reaction: This rings true for the two strategies of demonstration, the first by following the rules in steps, the second by using your imagination (or a tableau) to think up problems. |
| 19063 | Beth trees show semantics for intuitionistic logic, in terms of how truth has been established [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Beth trees give a semantics for intuitionistic logic, by representing sentence meaning in terms of conditions under which it is recognised to have been established as true. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.305) |
| 19059 | In standard views you could replace 'true' and 'false' with mere 0 and 1 [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Nothing is lost, on this view, if in the standard semantic treatment of classical sentential logic, we replace the standard truth-values 'true' and 'false' by the numbers 0 and 1. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.294) | |
| A reaction: [A long context will explain 'on this view'] He is discussing the relationship of syntactic and semantic consequence, and goes on to criticise simple binary truth-table accounts of connectives. Semantics on a computer would just be 0 and 1. |
| 19062 | Classical two-valued semantics implies that meaning is grasped through truth-conditions [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: The standard two-valued semantics for classical logic involves a conception under which to grasp the meaning of a sentence is to apprehend the conditions under which it is, or is not, true. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.305) | |
| A reaction: The idea is that you only have to grasp the truth tables for sentential logic, and that needs nothing more than knowing whether a sentence is true or false. I'm not sure where the 'conditions' creep in, though. |
| 19065 | Soundness and completeness proofs test the theory of meaning, rather than the logic theory [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: A proof of soundess or completeness is a test, not so much of the logical theory to which it applies, but of the theory of meaning which underlies the semantics. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.310) | |
| A reaction: These two types of proof concern how the syntax and the semantics match up, so this claim sounds plausible, though I tend to think of them as more like roadworthiness tests for logic, checking how well they function. |
| 16185 | Causality indicates which properties are real [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: Causality is a clue to what properties are real. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 9.3) | |
| A reaction: An interesting variant on the Shoemaker proposal that properties actually are causal. I'm not sure that there is anything more to causality that the expression in action of properties, which I take to be powers. Structures are not properties. |
| 19061 | An explanation is often a deduction, but that may well beg the question [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: An explanation is often a deductive argument, with the fact needing explaining as its conclusion. ...But the conclusion is usually given in advance, and we may only believe the premisses because they plausibly explain the conclusion. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.296) | |
| A reaction: [compressed (Dummett's wordy prose cries out for it!)] I suppose this works better in mathematics, which is central to Dummett's interests. In the real world the puzzle is not usually logically implied by its explanation. |
| 16182 | Two main types of explanation are by causes, or by citing a theoretical framework [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: In explaining a phenomenon one can cite the causes of that phenomenon; or one can set the phenomenon in a general theoretical framework. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: The thing is, you need to root an explanation in something taken as basic, and theoretical frameworks need further explanation, whereas causes seem to be basic. |
| 16184 | An explanation is a model that fits a theory and predicts the phenomenological laws [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: To explain a phenomenon is to find a model that fits it into the basic framework of the theory and that thus allows us to derive analogues for the messy and complicated phenomenological laws that are true of it. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: This summarises the core of her view in this book. She is after models rather than laws, and the models are based on causes. |
| 16171 | The covering law view assumes that each phenomenon has a 'right' explanation [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: The covering-law account supposes that there is, in principle, one 'right' explanation for each phenomenon. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Presumably the law is held to be 'right', but there must be a bit of flexibility in describing the initial conditions, and the explanandum itself. |
| 16167 | Laws get the facts wrong, and explanation rests on improvements and qualifications of laws [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: We explain by ceteris paribus laws, by composition of causes, and by approximations that improve on what the fundamental laws dictate. In all of these cases the fundamental laws patently do not get the facts right. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], Intro) | |
| A reaction: It is rather headline-grabbing to say in this case that laws do not get the facts right. If they were actually 'wrong' and 'lied', there wouldn't be much point in building explanations on them. |
| 16169 | Laws apply to separate domains, but real explanations apply to intersecting domains [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: When different kinds of causes compose, we want to explain what happens in the intersection of different domains. But the laws we use are designed only to tell truly what happens in each domain separately. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Since presumably the laws are discovered through experiments which try to separate out a single domain, in those circumstances they actually are true, so they don't 'lie'. |
| 16176 | Covering-law explanation lets us explain storms by falling barometers [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: Much criticism of the original covering-law model objects that it lets in too much. It seems we can explain Henry's failure to get pregnant by his taking birth control pills, and we can explain the storm by the falling barometer. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 2.0) | |
| A reaction: I take these examples to show that true explanations must be largely causal in character. The physicality of causation is what matters, not 'laws'. I'd say the same of attempts to account for causation through counterfactuals. |
| 16177 | I disagree with the covering-law view that there is a law to cover every single case [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: Covering-law theorists tend to think that nature is well-regulated; in the extreme, that there is a law to cover every case. I do not. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: The problem of coincidence is somewhere at the back of this thought. Innumerable events have their own explanations, but it is hard to explain their coincidence (see Aristotle's case of bumping into a friend in the market). |
| 16180 | You can't explain one quail's behaviour by just saying that all quails do it [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: 'Why does that quail in the garden bob its head up and down in that funny way whenever it walks?' …'Because they all do'. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: She cites this as an old complaint against the covering-law model of explanation. It captures beautifully the basic error of the approach. We want to know 'why', rather than just have a description of the pattern. 'They all do' is useful information. |
| 16183 | In science, best explanations have regularly turned out to be false [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: There are a huge number of cases in the history of science where we now know our best explanations were false. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: [She cites Laudan 1981 for this] The Ptolemaic system and aether are the standard example cited for this. I believe strongly in the importance of best explanation. Only a fool would just accept the best explanation available. Coherence is needed. |
| 19064 | Holism is not a theory of meaning; it is the denial that a theory of meaning is possible [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: In the sense of giving a model for the content of a sentence, its representative power, holism is not a theory of meaning; it is the denial that a theory of meaning is possible. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.309) | |
| A reaction: This will obviously be because sentences just don't have meaning in isolation, so their meaning can't be given in terms of the sentences. |
| 20082 | Bodily movements are not actions, which are really the tryings within bodily movement [Hornsby, by Stout,R] |
| Full Idea: Hornsby claims the basic description of action is in terms of trying, that all actions (even means of doing other actions) are actions of trying, and that tryings (and therefore actions) are interior to bodily movements (which are thus not essential). | |
| From: report of Jennifer Hornsby (Actions [1980]) by Rowland Stout - Action 9 'Trying' | |
| A reaction: [compression of his summary] There is no regress with explaining the 'action' of trying, because it is proposed that trying is the most basic thing in all actions. If you are paralysed, your trying does not result in action. Too mentalistic? |
| 16175 | A cause won't increase the effect frequency if other causes keep interfering [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: A cause ought to increase the frequency of the effect, but this fact may not show up in the probabilities if other causes are at work. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: [She cites Patrick Suppes for this one] Presumably in experimental situations you can weed out the interference, but that threatens to eliminate mere 'probability' entirely. |
| 6781 | There are fundamental explanatory laws (false!), and phenomenological laws (regularities) [Cartwright,N, by Bird] |
| Full Idea: Nancy Cartwright distinguishes between 'fundamental explanatory laws', which we should not believe, and 'phenomenological laws', which are regularities established on the basis of observation. | |
| From: report of Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: The distinction is helpful, so that we can be clearer about what everyone is claiming. We can probably all agree on the phenomenological laws, which are epistemological. Personally I claim truth for the best fundamental explanatory laws. |
| 16166 | Laws of appearances are 'phenomenological'; laws of reality are 'theoretical' [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: Philosophers distinguish phenomenological from theoretical laws. Phenomenological laws are about appearances; theoretical ones are about the reality behind the appearances. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], Intro) | |
| A reaction: I'm suspecting that Humeans only really believe in the phenomenological kind. I'm only interested in the theoretical kind, and I take inference to the best explanation to be the bridge between the two. Cartwright rejects the theoretical laws. |
| 16179 | Good organisation may not be true, and the truth may not organise very much [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: There is no reason to think that the principles that best organise will be true, nor that the principles that are true will organise much. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: This is aimed at the Mill-Ramsey-Lewis account of laws, as axiomatisations of the observed patterns in nature. |
| 16178 | There are few laws for when one theory meets another [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: Where theories intersect, laws are usually hard to come by. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: There are attempts at so-called 'bridge laws', to get from complex theories to simple ones, but her point is well made about theories on the same 'level'. |
| 16170 | To get from facts to equations, we need a prepared descriptions suited to mathematics [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: To get from a detailed factual knowledge of a situation to an equation, we must prepare the description of the situation to meet the mathematical needs of the theory. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], Intro) | |
| A reaction: She is clearly on to something here, as Galileo is blatantly wrong in his claim that the book of nature is written in mathematics. Mathematics is the best we can manage in getting a grip on the chaos. |
| 16181 | Simple laws have quite different outcomes when they act in combinations [Cartwright,N] |
| Full Idea: For explanation simple laws must have the same form when they act together as when they act singly. ..But then what the law states cannot literally be true, for the consequences that occur if it acts alone are not what occurs when they act in combination. | |
| From: Nancy Cartwright (How the Laws of Physics Lie [1983], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: This is Cartwright's basic thesis. Her point is that the laws 'lie', because they claim to predict a particular outcome which never ever actually occurs. She says we could know all the laws, and still not be able to explain anything. |