|
12801
|
Coherentists seek relations among beliefs that are simple, conservative and explanatory [Foley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Coherentists try to provide an explication of epistemic rationality in terms of a set of deductive and probabilistic relations among beliefs and properties such as simplicity, conservativeness, and explanatory power.
|
|
From:
Richard Foley (Justified Belief as Responsible Belief [2005], p.317)
|
|
A reaction:
I have always like the coherentist view of justification, and now I see that this has led me to the question of explanation, which in turn has led me to essentialism. It's all coming together. Watch this space. 'Explanatory' is the key to everything!
|
|
14024
|
Truthmaker has problems with generalisation, non-existence claims, and property instantiations [Crisp,TM]
|
|
Full Idea:
Truthmaker is controversial: what of truths like 'all ravens are black', or 'there are no unicorns'. And 'John is tall' is not made true by John or the property of being tall, but by the fusion of the two, but what could this non-mereological fusion be?
|
|
From:
Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 3.4)
|
|
A reaction:
A first move is to include modal facts (or possible worlds) among the truthmakers. The unicorns are tricky, and seem to need all of actuality as their truthmaker. I don't see the tallness difficulty. Predication is odd, but so what?
|
|
18801
|
Classical negation is circular, if it relies on knowing negation-conditions from truth-conditions [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Explanations of classical negation assume that knowing what it is for the truth-condition of some statement to obtain, independently of recognising it to obtain, we thereby know what it is for it NOT to obtain; but this presupposes classical negation.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (The Logical Basis of Metaphysics [1991], p.299), quoted by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought 1.1
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed wording] This is Dummett explaining why he prefers intuitionistic logic, with its doubts about double negation.
|
|
12800
|
Externalists want to understand knowledge, Internalists want to understand justification [Foley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Externalists are principally interested in understanding what knowledge is, ..while internalists, by contrast, are principally interested in explicating a sense of justification ..from one's own perspective.
|
|
From:
Richard Foley (Justified Belief as Responsible Belief [2005], p.314)
|
|
A reaction:
I find this very helpful, since I have a strong bias towards internalism (with a social dimension), and I see now that it is because I am more interested in what a (good) justification is than what some entity in reality called 'knowledge' consists of.
|
|
12802
|
We aren't directly pragmatic about belief, but pragmatic about the deliberation which precedes it [Foley]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is rare for pragmatic considerations to influence the rationality of our beliefs in the crass, direct way that Pascal's Wager envisions. Instead, they determine the direction and shape of our investigative and deliberative projects and practices.
|
|
From:
Richard Foley (Justified Belief as Responsible Belief [2005], p.320)
|
|
A reaction:
[See Idea 6684 for Pascal's Wager] Foley is evidently a full-blown pragmatist (which is bad), but this is nicely put. We can't deny the importance of the amount of effort put into an enquiry. Maybe it is an epistemic duty, rather than a means to an end.
|
|
14020
|
'Eternalism' is the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities [Crisp,TM]
|
|
Full Idea:
I use the term Eternalism for the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities. (It is sometimes used for the view that all propositions have their truth-value eternally - it is always true or never true).
|
|
From:
Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], Intro n.1)
|
|
A reaction:
'Eternalism' strikes me as an excellent word for the former meaning, so I shall promote that, and quietly forget the second one. The idea that the future exists has always stuck in my craw, and the belief that Napoleon still exists strikes me as a weird.
|
|
14022
|
The only three theories are Presentism, Dynamic (A-series) Eternalism and Static (B-series) Eternalism [Crisp,TM]
|
|
Full Idea:
Three theories exhaust the options on time: presentism, dynamic eternalism (eternalism with the tensed dynamic A-series view of time, and the totality of events changing over time), and static eternalism (eternalism with the B-series).
|
|
From:
Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 2.4)
|
|
A reaction:
I think the idea that reality is Static Eternalism is just a misunderstanding, arising from our imaginative ability to take a lofty objective overview of a very fluid reality. The other two are the serious candidates. Present, or Growing-block.
|