22 ideas
| 18781 | Inconsistency doesn't prevent us reasoning about some system [Mares] |
| Full Idea: We are able to reason about inconsistent beliefs, stories, and theories in useful and important ways | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) |
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: How are we to determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: Nice question. If I say 'philosophy is the love of wisdom' and 'philosophy bores me', why should one be part of its definition and the other not? What if I stipulated that the second one is part of my definition, and the first one isn't? |
| 18789 | Intuitionist logic looks best as natural deduction [Mares] |
| Full Idea: Intuitionist logic appears most attractive in the form of a natural deduction system. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.5) |
| 18790 | Intuitionism as natural deduction has no rule for negation [Mares] |
| Full Idea: In intuitionist logic each connective has one introduction and one elimination rule attached to it, but in the classical system we have to add an extra rule for negation. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: How very intriguing. Mares says there are other ways to achieve classical logic, but they all seem rather cumbersome. |
| 18787 | Three-valued logic is useful for a theory of presupposition [Mares] |
| Full Idea: One reason for wanting a three-valued logic is to act as a basis of a theory of presupposition. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Strawson 1950] The point is that you can get a result when the presupposition does not apply, as in talk of the 'present King of France'. |
| 18793 | Material implication (and classical logic) considers nothing but truth values for implications [Mares] |
| Full Idea: The problem with material implication, and classical logic more generally, is that it considers only the truth value of formulas in deciding whether to make an implication stand between them. It ignores everything else. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: The obvious problem case is conditionals, and relevance is an obvious extra principle that comes to mind. |
| 18784 | In classical logic the connectives can be related elegantly, as in De Morgan's laws [Mares] |
| Full Idea: Among the virtues of classical logic is the fact that the connectives are related to one another in elegant ways that often involved negation. For example, De Morgan's Laws, which involve negation, disjunction and conjunction. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: Mares says these enable us to take disjunction or conjunction as primitive, and then define one in terms of the other, using negation as the tool. |
| 18786 | Excluded middle standardly implies bivalence; attacks use non-contradiction, De M 3, or double negation [Mares] |
| Full Idea: On its standard reading, excluded middle tells us that bivalence holds. To reject excluded middle, we must reject either non-contradiction, or ¬(A∧B) ↔ (¬A∨¬B) [De Morgan 3], or the principle of double negation. All have been tried. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) |
| 18780 | Standard disjunction and negation force us to accept the principle of bivalence [Mares] |
| Full Idea: If we treat disjunction in the standard way and take the negation of a statement A to mean that A is false, accepting excluded middle forces us also to accept the principle of bivalence, which is the dictum that every statement is either true or false. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) | |
| A reaction: Mates's point is to show that passively taking the normal account of negation for granted has important implications. |
| 18782 | The connectives are studied either through model theory or through proof theory [Mares] |
| Full Idea: In studying the logical connectives, philosophers of logic typically adopt the perspective of either model theory (givng truth conditions of various parts of the language), or of proof theory (where use in a proof system gives the connective's meaning). | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] The commonest proof theory is natural deduction, giving rules for introduction and elimination. Mates suggests moving between the two views is illuminating. |
| 18783 | Many-valued logics lack a natural deduction system [Mares] |
| Full Idea: Many-valued logics do not have reasonable natural deduction systems. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) |
| 18792 | Situation semantics for logics: not possible worlds, but information in situations [Mares] |
| Full Idea: Situation semantics for logics consider not what is true in worlds, but what information is contained in situations. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 6.2) | |
| A reaction: Since many theoretical physicists seem to think that 'information' might be the most basic concept of a natural ontology, this proposal is obviously rather appealing. Barwise and Perry are the authors of the theory. |
| 18785 | Consistency is semantic, but non-contradiction is syntactic [Mares] |
| Full Idea: The difference between the principle of consistency and the principle of non-contradiction is that the former must be stated in a semantic metalanguage, whereas the latter is a thesis of logical systems. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) |
| 18788 | For intuitionists there are not numbers and sets, but processes of counting and collecting [Mares] |
| Full Idea: For the intuitionist, talk of mathematical objects is rather misleading. For them, there really isn't anything that we should call the natural numbers, but instead there is counting. What intuitionists study are processes, such as counting and collecting. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.1) | |
| A reaction: That is the first time I have seen mathematical intuitionism described in a way that made it seem attractive. One might compare it to a metaphysics based on processes. Apparently intuitionists struggle with infinite sets and real numbers. |
| 9333 | A priori belief is not necessarily a priori justification, or a priori knowledge [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: It is one thing to believe something a priori and another for this belief to be epistemically justified. The latter is required for a priori knowledge. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8) | |
| A reaction: Personally I would agree with this, because I don't think anything should count as knowledge if it doesn't have supporting reasons, but fans of a priori knowledge presumably think that certain basic facts are just known. They are a priori justified. |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Understanding is itself based on a priori commitment. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12) | |
| A reaction: This sounds plausible, but needs more justification than Horwich offers. This is the sort of New Rationalist idea I associate with Bonjour. The crucial feature of the New lot is, I take it, their fallibilism. All understanding is provisional. |
| 9332 | Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Our a priori commitment to certain sentences is not really explained by our knowledge of a word's meaning. It is the other way around. We accept a priori that the sentences are true, and thereby provide it with meaning. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8) | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a lovely trump card, but how on earth do you decide that a sentence is true if you don't know what it means? Personally I would take it that we are committed to the truth of a proposition, before we have a sentence for it. |
| 9341 | Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: A priori knowledge of logic and mathematics cannot derive from meanings or concepts, because someone may possess such concepts, and yet disagree with us about them. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12) | |
| A reaction: A good argument. The thing to focus on is not whether such ideas are a priori, but whether they are knowledge. I think we should employ the word 'intuition' for a priori candidates for knowledge, and demand further justification for actual knowledge. |
| 9334 | If we stipulate the meaning of 'number' to make Hume's Principle true, we first need Hume's Principle [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: If we stipulate the meaning of 'the number of x's' so that it makes Hume's Principle true, we must accept Hume's Principle. But a precondition for this stipulation is that Hume's Principle be accepted a priori. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §9) | |
| A reaction: Yet another modern Quinean argument that all attempts at defining things are circular. I am beginning to think that the only a priori knowledge we have is of when a group of ideas is coherent. Calling it 'intuition' might be more accurate. |
| 9339 | A priori knowledge (e.g. classical logic) may derive from the innate structure of our minds [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: One potential source of a priori knowledge is the innate structure of our minds. We might, for example, have an a priori commitment to classical logic. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §11) | |
| A reaction: Horwich points out that to be knowledge it must also say that we ought to believe it. I'm wondering whether if we divided the whole territory of the a priori up into intuitions and then coherent justifications, the whole problem would go away. |
| 7535 | If all beliefs are propositional, then belief and judgement are the same thing [Monk] |
| Full Idea: Whether the words 'belief' and 'judgement' mean the same thing is a moot point. Traditionally, a judgement is the assent of mind to a proposition. If one thinks that all beliefs are propositional, then beliefs and judgements are the same thing. | |
| From: Ray Monk (Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude [1996], Ch.19 n6) | |
| A reaction: If I think I have put a bit too much toothpaste on my brush, that strikes me as a non-propositional judgement, even though it could be spelled out as a proposition. But it also strikes me as a belief. |
| 18791 | In 'situation semantics' our main concepts are abstracted from situations [Mares] |
| Full Idea: In 'situation semantics' individuals, properties, facts, and events are treated as abstractions from situations. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 6.1) | |
| A reaction: [Barwise and Perry 1983 are cited] Since I take the process of abstraction to be basic to thought, I am delighted to learn that someone has developed a formal theory based on it. I am immediately sympathetic to situation semantics. |