9 ideas
11022 | Gentzen introduced a natural deduction calculus (NK) in 1934 [Gentzen, by Read] |
Full Idea: Gentzen introduced a natural deduction calculus (NK) in 1934. | |
From: report of Gerhard Gentzen (works [1938]) by Stephen Read - Thinking About Logic Ch.8 |
11065 | The inferential role of a logical constant constitutes its meaning [Gentzen, by Hanna] |
Full Idea: Gentzen argued that the inferential role of a logical constant constitutes its meaning. | |
From: report of Gerhard Gentzen (works [1938]) by Robert Hanna - Rationality and Logic 5.3 | |
A reaction: Possibly inspired by Wittgenstein's theory of meaning as use? This idea was the target of Prior's famous connective 'tonk', which has the role of implying anything you like, proving sentences which are not logical consequences. |
11023 | The logical connectives are 'defined' by their introduction rules [Gentzen] |
Full Idea: The introduction rules represent, as it were, the 'definitions' of the symbols concerned, and the elimination rules are no more, in the final analysis, than the consequences of these definitions. | |
From: Gerhard Gentzen (works [1938]), quoted by Stephen Read - Thinking About Logic Ch.8 | |
A reaction: If an introduction-rule (or a truth table) were taken as fixed and beyond dispute, then it would have the status of a definition, since there would be nothing else to appeal to. So is there anything else to appeal to here? |
11213 | Each logical symbol has an 'introduction' rule to define it, and hence an 'elimination' rule [Gentzen] |
Full Idea: To every logical symbol there belongs precisely one inference figure which 'introduces' the symbol ..and one which 'eliminates' it. The introductions represent the 'definitions' of the symbols concerned, and eliminations are consequences of these. | |
From: Gerhard Gentzen (works [1938], II.5.13), quoted by Ian Rumfitt - "Yes" and "No" III | |
A reaction: [1935 paper] This passage is famous, in laying down the basics of natural deduction systems of logic (ones using only rules, and avoiding axioms). Rumfitt questions whether Gentzen's account gives the sense of the connectives. |
10067 | Gentzen proved the consistency of arithmetic from assumptions beyond arithmetic [Gentzen, by Musgrave] |
Full Idea: Gentzen proved the consistency of arithmetic from assumptions which transcend arithmetic. | |
From: report of Gerhard Gentzen (works [1938]) by Alan Musgrave - Logicism Revisited §5 | |
A reaction: This does not contradict Gödel's famous result, but reinforces it. The interesting question is what assumptions Gentzen felt he had to make. |
8724 | The meaning of 'know' does not change from courtroom to living room [Unger] |
Full Idea: There is no reason to suppose that the meaning of 'know' changes from the courtroom to the living room and back again; no more than for supposing that 'vacuum' changes from the laboratory to the cannery. | |
From: Peter Unger (Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism [1975], 2.1) | |
A reaction: I disagree. Lots of words change their meaning (or reference) according to context. Flat, fast, tall, clever. She 'knows a lot' certainly requires a context. The bar of justification goes up and down, and 'knowledge' changes accordingly. |
8722 | No one knows anything, and no one is ever justified or reasonable [Unger] |
Full Idea: I argue for the thesis that no one ever knows about anything, ...and that consequently no one is ever justified or at all reasonable in anything. | |
From: Peter Unger (Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism [1975], Intro) | |
A reaction: The premiss of his book seems to be that knowledge is assumed to require certainty, and is therefore impossible. Unger has helped push us to a more relaxed and fallibilist attitude to knowledge. 'No one is reasonable' is daft! |
8723 | An evil scientist may give you a momentary life, with totally false memories [Unger] |
Full Idea: The evil scientist might not only be deceiving you with his electrodes; maybe he has just created you with your ostensible memory beliefs and experiences, and for good measure he will immediately destroy you, so in the next moment you no longer exist. | |
From: Peter Unger (Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism [1975], 1.12) | |
A reaction: This is based on Russell's scepticism about memory (Idea 2792). Even this very train of thought may not exist, if the first half of it was implanted, rather than being developed by you. I cannot see how to dispute this possibility. |
22086 | The most important aspect of a human being is not reason, but passion [Kierkegaard, by Carlisle] |
Full Idea: Kierkegaard insisted that the most important aspect of a human being is not reason, but passion. | |
From: report of Søren Kierkegaard (works [1845]) by Clare Carlisle - Kierkegaard: a guide for the perplexed Intro | |
A reaction: Hume comes to mind for a similar view, but in character Hume was far more rational than Kierkegaard. |