19 ideas
| 14352 | '¬', '&', and 'v' are truth functions: the truth of the compound is fixed by the truth of the components [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: It is widely agreed that '¬', '&', and 'v' are 'truth functions': the truth value of a compound sentence formed using them is fully determined by the truth value or values of the component sentences. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Equiv') | |
| A reaction: A candidate for not being a truth function might be a conditional →, where the arrow adds something over and above the propositions it connects. The relationship has an additional truth value? Does A depend on B? |
| 14360 | Possible worlds for subjunctives (and dispositions), and no-truth for indicatives? [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: Subjunctive conditionals are intimately connected with dispositional properties and causation. ...Consequently, a position some find attractive is that possible worlds theory applies to subjunctives, while the no-truth theory applies to indicatives. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Indicative') | |
| A reaction: My intuitions are to reject this and favour a unified account, where both sorts of conditionals are mappings of the relationships among the facts of actuality. Nice slogan! |
| 14353 | Modus ponens requires that A→B is F when A is T and B is F [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: Modus ponens is intuitively valid, but in A,A→B|B if A is true and B is false that must be because A→B is false. So A→B is false when A is true and B is false. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Equiv') | |
| A reaction: This is his first step in showing how the truth functional account of A→B acquires its truth table. If you are giving up the truth functional view of conditionals, presumably you are not also going to give up modus ponens? |
| 14354 | When A and B have the same truth value, A→B is true, because A→A is a logical truth [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: (A→A) is a logical truth, so some conditionals with antecedent and consequent the same truth value are true. But if '→' is a truth function, that will be true for all cases. Hence whenever A and B are alike in truth value, (A→B) is true. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Equiv') | |
| A reaction: His second step in demonstrating the truth table for →, assuming it is truth functional. |
| 14355 | (A&B)→A is a logical truth, even if antecedent false and consequent true, so it is T if A is F and B is T [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: (A&B)→A is a logical truth, but A can be true and B false, so that (A&B) is false. So some conditionals with false antecedent and true consequent are true. If → is a truth function, then whenever A is false and B is true (A→B) is true. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Equiv') | |
| A reaction: This is his third and final step in showing the truth table of → if it is truth functional. |
| 14358 | In the possible worlds account of conditionals, modus ponens and modus tollens are validated [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: In the possible worlds account modus ponens is validated (the closest world, the actual, is a B-world just if B is true), and modus tollens is validated (if B is false, the actual world is not an A-world, so A is false). | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Famous') | |
| A reaction: [see Jackson for slightly fuller versions] This looks like a minimal requirement for a decent theory of conditionals, so Jackson explains the attractions of the possible worlds view very persuasively. |
| 14359 | Only assertions have truth-values, and conditionals are not proper assertions [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: In the no-truth theory of conditionals they have justified assertion or acceptability conditions but not truth conditions. ...The motivation is that only assertions have truth values, and conditionals are arguments, not proper assertions. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'No-truth') | |
| A reaction: Once I trim this idea down to its basics, it suddenly looks very persuasive. Except that I am inclined to think that conditional truths do state facts about the world - perhaps as facts about how more basic truths are related to each other. |
| 14357 | Possible worlds account, unlike A⊃B, says nothing about when A is false [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: In the possible worlds account of conditionals A⊃B is not sufficient for A→B. If A is false then A⊃B is true, but here nothing is implied about whether the world most like the actual world except that A is true is or is not a B-world. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Possible') | |
| A reaction: The possible worlds account seems to be built on Ramsey's idea of just holding A true and seeing what you get. Being committed to B being automatically true if A is false seems highly counterintuitive. |
| 14356 | We can't insist that A is relevant to B, as conditionals can express lack of relevance [Jackson] |
| Full Idea: One addition to the truth functional account of conditionals is that A be somehow relevant to B. However, sometimes we use conditionals to express lack of relevance, as in 'If Fred works he will fail, and if Fred doesn't work he will fail'. | |
| From: Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Possible') | |
| A reaction: This certainly seems to put paid to an attractive instant solution to the problem. |
| 19712 | Maybe there is plain 'animal' knowledge, and clearly justified 'reflective' knowledge [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: There is a distinction between 'animal knowledge' (which requires only apt belief), and 'reflective knowledge' (requiring both apt and justified belief). | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 5) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Sosa 1991] My inclination (Idea 19711) was to think of knowledge as a continuum (possibly with a contextual component), and this distinction doesn't change my view, though it makes the point. |
| 19703 | Epistemic is normally marked out from moral or pragmatic justifications by its truth-goal [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: It is widely believed that epistemic justification is distinct from other species of justification such as moral or pragmatic justification in that it is intended to serve the so-called 'truth-goal'. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 1) | |
| A reaction: Kvanvig explicitly argues against this view. He broadens the aims, but it strikes me that other aims are all intertwined with truth in some way, so I find this idea quite plausible. |
| 19705 | 'Mentalist' internalism seems to miss the main point, if it might not involve an agent's access [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: Since mentalism remains neutral on whether mental states need be accessible to an agent ...it does not seem to do justice to the intuitions that drive paradigm internalist positions. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 A) | |
| A reaction: The rival view is 'access internalism', which implies that you can act on and take responsibility for your knowledge, because you are aware of its grounding. If animals know things, that might fit the mentalist picture better. |
| 19706 | Strong access internalism needs actual awareness; weak versions need possibility of access [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: A strong form of 'access internalism' is when an agent is required to be actually aware of the conditions that constitute justification; a weaker version loosens the accessibility condition, requiring only the ability to access the justification. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 B) | |
| A reaction: The super strong version implies that you probably only know one thing at a time, so it must be nonsense. The weaker version has grey areas. I remember roughly the justification, but not the details. The justification is in my diary. Etc. |
| 19707 | Maybe we need access to our justification, and also to know why it justifies [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: Access internalism may also have a truth-conducive conception of justification, where one should not only know what one's reasons are, but also why one's beliefs are probable on one's reasons. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 B) | |
| A reaction: [he cites Bonjour 1985] Sounds reasonable. It would seem odd if you had clear access to the reason, but didn't understand it, because you had just learned it by rote. |
| 19709 | Internalism in epistemology over-emphasises deliberation about beliefs [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: The internalist approach in epistemology seems to suggest an over-inellectualized and deliberative picture of our belief-forming activities. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2.2 B) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as confused. The question is not how do I arrive at my beliefs but what justifies my believing them, and what justifies the beliefs in themselves? My head is full of daft beliefs produced by TV advertising. |
| 19704 | Externalism may imply that identical mental states might go with different justifications [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: According to the 'mentalist' version of internalism, an externalist is someone who maintains that two people can be in the same present mental states while one has a justified belief and the other does not. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 A) | |
| A reaction: It seems an unlikely coincidence, that we have identical mental states, but your is (say) reliably created but mine isn't. Nevertheless this does seem to be an implication of externalism, though not a definition of it. |
| 19710 | With a counterfactual account of the causal theory, we get knowledge as tracking or sensitive to truth [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: The causal theory of justification was soon replaced by Nozick's construal of knowledge as counterfactually sensitive to its truth value (that is, it tracks truth). A counterfactual theory of causation connects this to the causal theory. | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 3) | |
| A reaction: This is presented as an externalist theory, close to the causal theory (and prior to the reliability theory). But how could you be 'sensitive' to a changing truth if the justification was all external? Externally supported beliefs seem ossified. |
| 19711 | Externalism makes the acquisition of knowledge too easy? [Vahid] |
| Full Idea: Internalists say that externalism is inadequate because it makes the obtaining of knowledge and justified beliefs too easy | |
| From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 4) | |
| A reaction: This looks like a key issue in epistemology. Do children and animals have lots of knowledge, which they soak up unthinkingly, or do only thinking adults really 'know' things? Why not have degrees of knowledge? |
| 7413 | Without confidence in our beliefs, how should we actually live? [Tuck] |
| Full Idea: The central question for sceptics is if we lose confidence in the truth of most existing beliefs, then how do we actually live? | |
| From: Richard Tuck (Hobbes [1989], Ch.4) | |
| A reaction: Scepticism is not, of course, all or nothing. You can lead a 'normal' life in a virtual reality machine. I find it much more of a struggle to live if I lose faith in values, than if I lose faith in tables. |