Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Scientific Explanation', 'What We Owe to Each Other' and 'On the General Idea of Proof Theory'

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

---

4 ideas

2. Reason / F. Fallacies / 4. Circularity

9355	One sort of circularity presupposes a premise, the other presupposes a rule being used [Braithwaite, by Devitt]
	Full Idea: An argument is 'premise-circular' if it aims to establish a conclusion that is assumed as a premise of that very argument. An argument is 'rule-circular' if it aims to establish a conclusion that asserts the goodness of the rule used in that argument.
	From: report of R.B. Braithwaite (Scientific Explanation [1953], p.274-8) by Michael Devitt - There is no a Priori §2
	A reaction: Rule circularity is the sort of thing Quine is always objecting to, but such circularities may be unavoidable, and even totally benign. All the good things in life form a mutually supporting team.

5. Theory of Logic / B. Logical Consequence / 1. Logical Consequence

13827	Logical consequence isn't a black box (Tarski's approach); we should explain how arguments work [Prawitz]
	Full Idea: Defining logical consequence in the way Tarski does is a rather meagre result, treating an argument as a black box, observing input and output, while disregarding inner structure. We should define logical consequence on the basis of valid arguments.
	From: Dag Prawitz (On the General Idea of Proof Theory [1974], §2)

5. Theory of Logic / J. Model Theory in Logic / 1. Logical Models

13826	Model theory looks at valid sentences and consequence, but not how we know these things [Prawitz]
	Full Idea: In model theory, which has dominated the last decades, one concentrates on logically valid sentences, and what follows logically from what, but one disregards questions concerning how we know these things.
	From: Dag Prawitz (On the General Idea of Proof Theory [1974], §1)

23. Ethics / B. Contract Ethics / 9. Contractualism

20992	Right and wrong concerns what other people cannot reasonably reject [Scanlon]
	Full Idea: Thinking about right and wrong is, at the most basic level, thinking about what could be justified to others on grounds that they, if appropriately motivated, could not reasonably reject.
	From: Thomas M. Scanlon (What We Owe to Each Other [1998], Intro)
	A reaction: The tricky bit is that the acceptance by others must be 'reasonable', so we need a reasonably objective view of rationality. Don't picture your neighbours, picture the locals when you are on holiday in a very different culture. Other Nazis?