|
9160
|
Lots of propositions are default reasonable, but the a priori ones are empirically indefeasible [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Propositions such as 'People usually tell the truth' seem to count as default reasonable, but it is odd to count them as a priori. Empirical indefeasibility seems the obvious way to distinguish those default reasonable propositions that are a priori.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Apriority as an Evaluative Notion [2000], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Sounds reasonable, but it would mean that all the uniformities of nature would then count as a priori. 'Every physical object exerts gravity' probably has no counterexamples, but doesn't seem a priori (even if it is necessary). See Idea 9164.
|
|
9165
|
Reliability only makes a rule reasonable if we place a value on the truth produced by reliable processes [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Reliability is not a 'factual property'; in calling a rule reasonable we are evaluating it, and all that makes sense to ask about is what we value. We place a high value on the reliability of our inductive and perceptual rules that lead to truth.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Apriority as an Evaluative Notion [2000], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
This doesn't seem to be a contradiction of reliabilism, since truth is a pretty widespread epistemological value. If you do value truth, then eyes are pretty reliable organs for attaining it. Reliabilism is still wrong, but not for this reason.
|
|
9162
|
Believing nothing, or only logical truths, is very reliable, but we want a lot more than that [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Reliability is not all we want in an inductive rule. Completely reliable methods are available, such as believing nothing, or only believing logical truths. But we don't value them, but value less reliable methods with other characteristics.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Apriority as an Evaluative Notion [2000], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
I would take this excellent point to be an advertisement for inference to the best explanation, which requires not only reliable inputs of information, but also a presiding rational judge to assess the mass of evidence.
|
|
9163
|
If we only use induction to assess induction, it is empirically indefeasible, and hence a priori [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
If some inductive rule is basic for us, in the sense that we never assess it using any rules other than itself, then it must be one that we treat as empirically indefeasible (hence as fully a priori, given that it will surely have default status).
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Apriority as an Evaluative Notion [2000], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This follows on from Field's account of a priori knowledge. See Ideas 9160 and 9164. I think of induction as simply learning from experience, but if experience goes mad I will cease to trust it. (A rationalist view).
|
|
2537
|
Types are properties, and tokens are events. Are they split between mental and physical, or not? [Sturgeon]
|
|
Full Idea:
The question is whether mental and physical types (which are properties) are distinct, and whether mental and physical tokens (which are events) are distinct.
|
|
From:
Scott Sturgeon (Matters of Mind [2000], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Helpful. While the first one gives us the rather dodgy notion of 'property dualism', the second one seems to imply Cartesian dualism, if the events really are distinct. It seems to me that thought is an aspect of brain events, not a distinct event.
|
|
2535
|
The main argument for physicalism is its simple account of causation [Sturgeon]
|
|
Full Idea:
The dominant empirical argument for physicalism is the Overdetermination Argument: physics is closed and complete, mind is causally efficacious, the world isn't choc-full of overdetermination, so the mind is physical as well.
|
|
From:
Scott Sturgeon (Matters of Mind [2000], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
I find this argument utterly convincing. The idea that there is only one thing which is outside the interconnected causal nexus which seems to constitute the rest of reality, and that is a piece of meat inside our heads, strikes me as totally ridiculous.
|
|
5994
|
Is the cosmos open or closed, mechanical or teleological, alive or inanimate, and created or eternal? [Robinson,TM, by PG]
|
|
Full Idea:
The four major disputes in classical cosmology were whether the cosmos is 'open' or 'closed', whether it is explained mechanistically or teleologically, whether it is alive or mere matter, and whether or not it has a beginning.
|
|
From:
report of T.M. Robinson (Classical Cosmology (frags) [1997]) by PG - Db (ideas)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice summary. The standard modern view is closed, mechanistic, inanimate and non-eternal. But philosophers can ask deeper questions than physicists, and I say we are entitled to speculate when the evidence runs out.
|