Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Mechanisms', 'poems (frags)' and 'Are Freedom and Equality Compatible?'

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


13 ideas

14. Science / B. Scientific Theories / 2. Aim of Science
Empiricist theories are sets of laws, which give explanations and reductions [Glennan]
     Full Idea: In the empiricist tradition theories were understood to be deductive closures of sets of laws, explanations were understood as arguments from covering laws, and reduction was understood as a deductive relationship between laws of different theories.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'Intro')
     A reaction: A lovely crisp summary of the whole tradition of philosophy of science from Comte through to Hempel. Mechanism and essentialism are the new players in the game.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / i. Explanations by mechanism
Modern mechanism need parts with spatial, temporal and function facts, and diagrams [Glennan]
     Full Idea: Modern champions of mechanisms say models should identify both the parts and their spatial, temporal and functional organisation, ...and the practical importance of diagrams in addition to or in place of linguistic representations of mechanisms.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'Discover')
     A reaction: Apparently chemists obtain much more refined models by using mathematics than they did by diagrams or 3D models (let alone verbal descriptions). For that reason, I'm thinking that 'model' might be a better term than 'mechanism'.
Mechanistic philosophy of science is an alternative to the empiricist law-based tradition [Glennan]
     Full Idea: To a significant degree, a mechanistic philosophy of science can be seen as an alternative to an earlier logical empiricist tradition in philosophy of science that gave pride of place to laws of nature.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'Intro')
     A reaction: Lovely! Someone who actually spells out what's going on here. Most philosophers are far too coy about explaining what their real game is. Mechanism is fine in chemistry and biology. How about in 'mathematical' physics, or sociology?
Mechanisms are either systems of parts or sequences of activities [Glennan]
     Full Idea: There are two sorts of mechanisms: systems consist of collections of parts that interact to produce some behaviour, and processes are sequences of activities which produce some outcome.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'Intro')
     A reaction: [compressed] The second one is important because it is more generic, and under that account all kinds the features of the world that need to be explained can be subsumed. E.g. hyperinflation in an economy is a 'mechanism'.
17th century mechanists explained everything by the kinetic physical fundamentals [Glennan]
     Full Idea: 17th century mechanists said that interactions governed by chemical, electrical or gravitational forces would have to be explicable in terms of the operation of some atomistic (or corpuscular) kinetic mechanism.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'Intro')
     A reaction: Glennan says science has rejected this, so modern mechanists do not reduce mechanisms to anything in particular.
Unlike the lawlike approach, mechanistic explanation can allow for exceptions [Glennan]
     Full Idea: One of the advantages of the move from nomological to mechanistic modes of explanation is that the latter allows for explanations involving exception-ridden generalizations.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'regular')
     A reaction: The lawlike approach has endless problems with 'ceteris paribus' ('all things being equal') laws, where specifying all the other 'things' seems a bit tricky.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
The virtue of man is thoughtful foresight of future events [Chilo, by Diog. Laertius]
     Full Idea: A foresight of future events, such as could be arrived at by consideration, is the virtue of man.
     From: report of Chilo (poems (frags) [c.490 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 01.4.1
25. Social Practice / A. Freedoms / 5. Freedom of lifestyle
The right-wing conception of freedom is based on the idea of self-ownership [Cohen,GA]
     Full Idea: The right-wing conception of freedom is, I think, founded on the idea that each person is the morally rightful owner of himself, even if existing legal systems do not acknowledge it. Let us call that the 'self-ownership' thesis.
     From: G.A. Cohen (Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? [1986], 1)
     A reaction: He cites Nozick as articulating this view. At the end Cohen rejects self-ownership, though he agrees that no one would accept that the state could be the owner of your eyes. Do I own my hair after it is cut?
Plenty of people have self-ownership, but still lack autonomy [Cohen,GA]
     Full Idea: Universal self-ownership fails to ensure autonomy, since it tends to produce proletarians, who lack it.
     From: G.A. Cohen (Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? [1986], 3)
     A reaction: The implication is that autonomy is not a property of individuals but a social phenomenon. Self-owning people can still be imprisoned. What about autonomy without self-ownership? A bright slave who is given extensive responsibility?
25. Social Practice / C. Rights / 4. Property rights
It is doubtful whether any private property was originally acquired legitimately [Cohen,GA]
     Full Idea: It is easy to doubt that much actually existing private property was formed in what anyone could think was a legitimating way.
     From: G.A. Cohen (Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? [1986], 2)
     A reaction: What if I created an artificial island out of unwanted raw materials? What about the first humans to reach some remote territory?
It is plausible that no one has an initial right to own land and natural resources [Cohen,GA]
     Full Idea: One may plausibly say of external things in their initial state, of raw land and natural resources, that no person has a greater right to them than any other does.
     From: G.A. Cohen (Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? [1986], 1)
     A reaction: How about if your group has lived on that plot for fifty generations, and some interlopers arrive and claim part of it. No one thought of 'owning' it till the interlopers arrived. Native Americans and Australians.
Every thing which is now private started out as unowned [Cohen,GA]
     Full Idea: In the prehistory of anything that is now private property there was at least one moment at which something privately unowned was taken into private ownership.
     From: G.A. Cohen (Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? [1986], 2)
     A reaction: He is obviously talking about land and natural resources. Presumably a table which I made and own was always private property, although the land where the trees were grown was not. Though in some communities what I make could be automatically communal.
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation
Since causal events are related by mechanisms, causation can be analysed in that way [Glennan]
     Full Idea: Causation can be analyzed in terms of mechanisms because (except for fundamental causal interactions) causally related events will be connected by intervening mechanisms.
     From: Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'causation')
     A reaction: This won't give us the metaphysics of causation (which concerns the fundamentals), but this strikes me as a very coherent and interesting proposal. He mentions electron interaction as non-mechanistic causation.