Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'On the Nature of Acquaintance' and 'Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics'

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


15 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / e. Philosophy as reason
Discoveries in mathematics can challenge philosophy, and offer it a new foundation [Russell]
     Full Idea: Any new discovery as to mathematical method and principles is likely to upset a great deal of otherwise plausible philosophising, as well as to suggest a new philosophy which will be solid in proportion as its foundations in mathematics are securely laid.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.283)
     A reaction: This is a manifesto for modern analytic philosophy. I'm not convinced, especially if a fictionalist view of maths is plausible. What Russell wants is rigour, but there are other ways of getting that. Currently I favour artificial intelligence.
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 6. Coherence
If one proposition is deduced from another, they are more certain together than alone [Russell]
     Full Idea: Two obvious propositions of which one can be deduced from the other both become more certain than either in isolation; thus in a complicated deductive system, many parts of which are obvious, the total probability may become all but absolute certainty.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.279)
     A reaction: Thagard picked this remark out, in support of his work on coherence.
2. Reason / B. Laws of Thought / 3. Non-Contradiction
Non-contradiction was learned from instances, and then found to be indubitable [Russell]
     Full Idea: The law of contradiction must have been originally discovered by generalising from instances, though, once discovered, it was found to be quite as indubitable as the instances.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.274)
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 1. Naming / c. Names as referential
The only real proper names are 'this' and 'that'; the rest are really definite descriptions. [Russell, by Grayling]
     Full Idea: Russell argued that the only 'logically proper' names are those which denote particular entities with which one can be acquainted. The best examples are 'this' and 'that'; other apparent names turn out, when analysed, to be definite descriptions.
     From: report of Bertrand Russell (On the Nature of Acquaintance [1914]) by A.C. Grayling - Russell Ch.2
     A reaction: This view is firm countered by the causal theory of reference, proposed by Kripke and others, in which not only people like Aristotle are 'baptised' with a name, but also natural kinds such as water. It is hard to disagree with Kripke on this.
5. Theory of Logic / K. Features of Logics / 1. Axiomatisation
Which premises are ultimate varies with context [Russell]
     Full Idea: Premises which are ultimate in one investigation may cease to be so in another.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.273)
The sources of a proof are the reasons why we believe its conclusion [Russell]
     Full Idea: In mathematics, except in the earliest parts, the propositions from which a given proposition is deduced generally give the reason why we believe the given proposition.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.273)
Finding the axioms may be the only route to some new results [Russell]
     Full Idea: The premises [of a science] ...are pretty certain to lead to a number of new results which could not otherwise have been known.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.282)
     A reaction: I identify this as the 'fruitfulness' that results when the essence of something is discovered.
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 2. Proof in Mathematics
It seems absurd to prove 2+2=4, where the conclusion is more certain than premises [Russell]
     Full Idea: It is an apparent absurdity in proceeding ...through many rather recondite propositions of symbolic logic, to the 'proof' of such truisms as 2+2=4: for it is plain that the conclusion is more certain than the premises, and the supposed proof seems futile.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.272)
     A reaction: Famously, 'Principia Mathematica' proved this fact at enormous length. I wonder if this thought led Moore to his common sense view of his own hand - the conclusion being better than the sceptical arguments?
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 4. Mathematical Empiricism / a. Mathematical empiricism
Arithmetic was probably inferred from relationships between physical objects [Russell]
     Full Idea: When 2 + 2 =4 was first discovered, it was probably inferred from the case of sheep and other concrete cases.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.272)
11. Knowledge Aims / B. Certain Knowledge / 3. Fallibilism
The most obvious beliefs are not infallible, as other obvious beliefs may conflict [Russell]
     Full Idea: Even where there is the highest degree of obviousness, we cannot assume that we are infallible - a sufficient conflict with other obvious propositions may lead us to abandon our belief, as in the case of a hallucination afterwards recognised as such.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.279)
     A reaction: This approach to fallibilism seems to arise from the paradox that undermined Frege's rather obvious looking axioms. After Peirce and Russell, fallibilism has become a secure norm of modern thought.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / a. Coherence as justification
Believing a whole science is more than believing each of its propositions [Russell]
     Full Idea: Although intrinsic obviousness is the basis of every science, it is never, in a fairly advanced science, the whole of our reason for believing any one proposition of the science.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.279)
14. Science / C. Induction / 2. Aims of Induction
Induction is inferring premises from consequences [Russell]
     Full Idea: The inferring of premises from consequences is the essence of induction.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.274)
     A reaction: So induction is just deduction in reverse? Induction is transcendental deduction? Do I deduce the premises from observing a lot of white swans? Hm.
25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 5. Education / b. Education principles
Learned men gain more in one day than others do in a lifetime [Posidonius]
     Full Idea: In a single day there lies open to men of learning more than there ever does to the unenlightened in the longest of lifetimes.
     From: Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]), quoted by Seneca the Younger - Letters from a Stoic 078
     A reaction: These remarks endorsing the infinite superiority of the educated to the uneducated seem to have been popular in late antiquity. It tends to be the religions which discourage great learning, especially in their emphasis on a single book.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 1. Laws of Nature
The law of gravity has many consequences beyond its grounding observations [Russell]
     Full Idea: The law of gravitation leads to many consequences which could not be discovered merely from the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics [1907], p.275)
27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 1. Nature of Time / d. Time as measure
Time is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed [Posidonius, by Stobaeus]
     Full Idea: Posidonius defined time thus: it is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed and slowness.
     From: report of Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]) by John Stobaeus - Anthology 1.08.42
     A reaction: Hm. Can we define motion or speed without alluding to time? Looks like we have to define them as a conjoined pair, which means we cannot fully understand either of them.