30 ideas
19306 | It is a principle of reasoning not to clutter your mind with trivialities [Harman] |
Full Idea: I am assuming the following principle: Clutter Avoidance - in reasoning, one should not clutter one's mind with trivialities. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 2) | |
A reaction: I like Harman's interest in the psychology of reasoning. In the world of Frege, it is taboo to talk about psychology. |
19304 | The rules of reasoning are not the rules of logic [Harman] |
Full Idea: Rules of deduction are rules of deductive argument; they are not rules of inference or reasoning. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 1) | |
A reaction: And I have often noticed that good philosophing reasoners and good logicians are frequently not the same people. |
19307 | If there is a great cost to avoiding inconsistency, we learn to reason our way around it [Harman] |
Full Idea: We sometimes discover our views are inconsistent and do not know how to revise them in order to avoid inconsistency without great cost. The best response may be to keep the inconsistency and try to avoid inferences that exploit it. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 2) | |
A reaction: Any decent philosopher should face this dilemma regularly. I assume non-philosophers don't compare the different compartments of their beliefs very much. Students of non-monotonic logics are trying to formalise such thinking. |
19309 | Logic has little relevance to reasoning, except when logical conclusions are immediate [Harman] |
Full Idea: Although logic does not seem specially relevant to reasoning, immediate implication and immediate inconsistency do seem important for reasoning. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 2) | |
A reaction: Ordinary thinkers can't possibly track complex logical implications, so we have obviously developed strategies for coping. I assume formal logic is contructed from the basic ingredients of the immediate and obvious implications, such as modus ponens. |
19303 | Implication just accumulates conclusions, but inference may also revise our views [Harman] |
Full Idea: Implication is cumulative, in a way that inference may not be. In argument one accumulates conclusions; things are always added, never subtracted. Reasoned revision, however, can subtract from one's view as well as add. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 1) | |
A reaction: This has caught Harman's attention, I think (?), because he is looking for non-monotonic reasoning (i.e. revisable reasoning) within a classical framework. If revision is responding to evidence, the logic can remain conventional. |
14273 | Conditional Proof is only valid if we accept the truth-functional reading of 'if' [Edgington] |
Full Idea: Conditional Proof seems sound: 'From X and Y, it follows that Z. So from X it follows that if Y,Z'. Yet for no reading of 'if' which is stronger that the truth-functional reading is CP valid, at least if we accept ¬(A&¬B);A; therefore B. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.2) | |
A reaction: See the section of ideas on Conditionals (filed under 'Modality') for a fuller picture of this issue. Edgington offers it as one of the main arguments in favour of the truth-functional reading of 'if' (though she rejects that reading). |
19305 | The Gambler's Fallacy (ten blacks, so red is due) overemphasises the early part of a sequence [Harman] |
Full Idea: The Gambler's Fallacy says if black has come up ten times in a row, red must be highly probable next time. It overlooks how the impact of an initial run of one color can become more and more insignificant as the sequence gets longer. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 1) | |
A reaction: At what point do you decide that the roulette wheel is fixed, rather than that you have fallen for the Gambler's Fallacy? Interestingly, standard induction points to the opposite conclusion. But then you have prior knowledge of the wheel. |
19310 | High probability premises need not imply high probability conclusions [Harman] |
Full Idea: Propositions that are individually highly probable can have an immediate implication that is not. The fact that one can assign a high probability to P and also to 'if P then Q' is not sufficient reason to assign high probability to Q. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 3) | |
A reaction: He cites Kyburg's Lottery Paradox. It is probable that there is a winning ticket, and that this ticket is not it. Thus it is NOT probable that I will win. |
14281 | A thing works like formal probability if all the options sum to 100% [Edgington] |
Full Idea: One's degrees of belief in the members of an idealised partition should sum to 100%. That is all there is to the claim that degrees of belief should have the structure of probabilities. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 3.1) |
14284 | Conclusion improbability can't exceed summed premise improbability in valid arguments [Edgington] |
Full Idea: If (and only if) an argument is valid, then in no probability distribution does the improbability of its conclusion exceed the sum of the improbabilities of its premises. We can call this the Probability Preservation Principle. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 3.2) | |
A reaction: [Ernest Adams is credited with this] This means that classical logic is in some way probability-preserving as well as truth-preserving. |
14270 | Simple indicatives about past, present or future do seem to form a single semantic kind [Edgington] |
Full Idea: Straightforward statements about the past, present or future, to which a conditional clause is attached - the traditional class of indicative conditionals - do (in my view) constitute a single semantic kind. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 1) | |
A reaction: This contrasts with Idea 14269, where the future indicatives are group instead with the counterfactuals. |
14269 | Maybe forward-looking indicatives are best classed with the subjunctives [Edgington] |
Full Idea: According to some theorists, the forward-looking 'indicatives' (those with a 'will' in the main clause) belong with the 'subjunctives' (those with a 'would' in the main clause), and not with the other 'indicatives'. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 1) | |
A reaction: [She cites Gibbard, Dudman and 1988 Bennett; Jackson defends the indicative/subjunctive division, and recent Bennett defends it too] It is plausible to say that 'If you will do x' is counterfactual, since it hasn't actually happened. |
14275 | Truth-function problems don't show up in mathematics [Edgington] |
Full Idea: The main defects of the truth-functional account of conditionals don't show up in mathematics. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.3) | |
A reaction: These problems are the paradoxes associated with the material conditional ⊃. Too often mathematical logic has been the tail that wagged the dog in modern philosophy. |
14274 | Inferring conditionals from disjunctions or negated conjunctions gives support to truth-functionalism [Edgington] |
Full Idea: If either A or B is true, then you are intuitively justified in believe that If ¬A, B. If you know that ¬(A&B), then you may justifiably infer that if A, ¬B. The truth-functionalist gets both of these cases (disjunction and negated conjunction) correct. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1) | |
A reaction: [compressed version] This summarises two of Edgington's three main arguments in favour of the truth-functional account of conditions (along with the existence of Conditional Proof). It is elementary classical logic which supports truth-functionalism. |
14276 | The truth-functional view makes conditionals with unlikely antecedents likely to be true [Edgington] |
Full Idea: The truth-functional view of conditionals has the unhappy consequence that all conditionals with unlikely antecedents are likely to be true. To think it likely that ¬A is to think it likely that a sufficient condition for the truth of A⊃B obtains. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.3) | |
A reaction: This is Edgington's main reason for rejecting the truth-functional account of conditionals. She says it removes our power to discriminate between believable and unbelievable conditionals, which is basic to practical reasoning. |
14290 | Doctor:'If patient still alive, change dressing'; Nurse:'Either dead patient, or change dressing'; kills patient! [Edgington] |
Full Idea: The doctor says "If the patient is still alive in the morning, change the dressing". As a truth-functional command this says "Make it that either the patient is dead in the morning, or change the dressing", so the nurse kills the patient. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 5) | |
A reaction: Isn't philosophy wonderful? |
14271 | Non-truth-functionalist say 'If A,B' is false if A is T and B is F, but deny that is always true for TT,FT and FF [Edgington] |
Full Idea: Non-truth-functional accounts agree that 'If A,B' is false when A is true and B is false; and that it is sometimes true for the other three combinations of truth-values; but they deny that the conditional is always true in each of these three cases. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1) | |
A reaction: Truth-functional connectives like 'and' and 'or' don't add any truth-conditions to the values of the propositions, but 'If...then' seems to assert a relationship that goes beyond its component propositions, so non-truth-functionalists are right. |
14272 | I say "If you touch that wire you'll get a shock"; you don't touch it. How can that make the conditional true? [Edgington] |
Full Idea: Non-truth-functionalists agree that when A is false, 'If A,B' may be either true or false. I say "If you touch that wire, you will get an electric shock". You don't touch it. Was my remark true or false? They say it depends on the wire etc. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1) | |
A reaction: This example seems to me to be a pretty conclusive refutation of the truth-functional view. How can the conditional be implied simply by my failure to touch the wire (which is what benighted truth-functionalists seem to believe)? |
14282 | On the supposition view, believe if A,B to the extent that A&B is nearly as likely as A [Edgington] |
Full Idea: Accepting Ramsey's suggestion that 'if' and 'on the supposition that' come to the same thing, we get an equation which says ...you believe if A,B to the extent that you think that A&B is nearly as likely as A. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 3.1) |
14278 | Truth-functionalists support some conditionals which we assert, but should not actually believe [Edgington] |
Full Idea: There are compounds of conditionals which we confidently assert and accept which, by the lights of the truth-functionalist, we do not have reason to believe true, such as 'If it broke if it was dropped, it was fragile', when it is NOT dropped. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.5) | |
A reaction: [The example is from Gibbard 1981] The fact that it wasn't dropped only negates the nested antecedent, not the whole antecedent. I suppose it also wasn't broken, and both negations seem to be required. |
14287 | Does 'If A,B' say something different in each context, because of the possibiites there? [Edgington] |
Full Idea: A pragmatic constraint might say that as different possibilities are live in different conversational settings, a different proposition may be expressed by 'If A,B' in different conversational settings. | |
From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 4.1) | |
A reaction: Edgington says that it is only the truth of the proposition, not its content, which changes with context. I'm not so sure. 'If Hitler finds out, we are in trouble' says different things in 1914 and 1944. |
19308 | We strongly desire to believe what is true, even though logic does not require it [Harman] |
Full Idea: Moore's Paradox: one is strongly disposed not to believe both P and that one does not believe that P, while realising that these propositions are perfectly consistent with one another. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 2) | |
A reaction: [Where in Moore?] A very nice example of a powerful principle of reasoning which can never be captured in logic. |
19311 | In revision of belief, we need to keep track of justifications for foundations, but not for coherence [Harman] |
Full Idea: The key issue in belief revision is whether one needs to keep track of one's original justifications for beliefs. What I am calling the 'foundations' theory says yes; what I am calling the 'coherence' theory says no. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 4) | |
A reaction: I favour coherence in all things epistemological, and this idea seems to match real life, where I am very confident of many beliefs of which I have forgotten the justification. Harman says coherentists need the justification only when they doubt a belief. |
19312 | Coherence is intelligible connections, especially one element explaining another [Harman] |
Full Idea: Coherence in a view consists in connections of intelligibility among the elements of the view. Among other things these included explanatory connections, which hold when part of one's view makes it intelligible why some other part should be true. | |
From: Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 7) | |
A reaction: Music to my ears. I call myself an 'explanatory empiricist', and embrace a coherence theory of justification. This is the framework within which philosophy should be practised. Harman is our founder, and Paul Thagard our guru. |
5952 | Rather than being the whole soul, maybe I am its chief part? [Plutarch] |
Full Idea: Is each of us not the soul, but the chief part of the soul, by which we think and reason and act, all the other parts of soul as well as of body being mere instruments of its power? | |
From: Plutarch (74: Reply to Colotes [c.85], §1119) | |
A reaction: Socrates is associated with the idea that I am my whole soul (Idea 1650). Plutarch represents an interesting development, which may lead both to the Christian 'soul' and to the Cartesian 'ego'. I think Plutarch is right, but what is the 'soul'? |
5951 | If atoms have no qualities, they cannot possibly produce a mind [Plutarch] |
Full Idea: Perception, mind, intelligence and thought cannot so much as be conceived, even with the best will, as arising among void and atoms, things which taken separately have no quality. | |
From: Plutarch (74: Reply to Colotes [c.85], §1112) | |
A reaction: A nice articulation of the intuition of all anti-physicalists. Plutarch would have to rethink his position carefully if he learned of the sheer number of connections in the brain, and of the theory of natural selection. His challenge remains, though. |
20796 | Action needs an affinity for a presentation, and an impulse toward the affinity [Plutarch] |
Full Idea: The sceptics say there are three movements of the soul: presentation, impulse and assent. …And action requires two things: a presentation of something to which one has an affinity, and an impulse toward what is presented as an object of affinity. | |
From: Plutarch (74: Reply to Colotes [c.85], 1122c) | |
A reaction: Not much reasoning involved in this account, which the sceptics say is compatible with suspension of judgement. |
5948 | The good life involves social participation, loyalty, temperance and honesty [Plutarch] |
Full Idea: To live the good life is to live a life of participation in society, of loyalty to friends, of temperance and honest dealing. | |
From: Plutarch (74: Reply to Colotes [c.85], §1108) | |
A reaction: 'Participation in society' is the interesting one. This might translate as 'doing your duty', or as 'leading a well-rounded life'. Solitude is wrong if you are indebted to others, and it is unhealthy if you are not. Is solitude really immoral, though? |
5950 | If only atoms exist, how do qualities arise when the atoms come together? [Plutarch] |
Full Idea: If you accept atomism, you must show how bodies without quality have given rise to qualities of every kind by the mere fact of coming together. For example, how has the quality called 'hot' been imposed on the atoms? | |
From: Plutarch (74: Reply to Colotes [c.85], §1111) | |
A reaction: This argument is still significant in current philosophy of mind. If temperature is 'mean kinetic energy', you are left wondering where the energy came from, and why minds experience the heat. This is the 'Hard Question'. |
5955 | No one will ever find a city that lacks religious practices [Plutarch] |
Full Idea: A city without holy places and gods, without any observance of prayers, oaths, oracles, sacrifices for blessings received or rites to avert evils, no traveller has ever seen or will ever see. | |
From: Plutarch (74: Reply to Colotes [c.85], §1125) | |
A reaction: The nearest you might get would be Soviet Moscow, but in 1973 I saw a man there jeering at a woman who was kneeling in the street outside a closed church. Plutarch would be stunned at the decline in religious practices in modern Europe. |