13 ideas
18755 | Validity is explained as truth in all models, because that relies on the logical terms [McGee] |
Full Idea: A model of a language assigns values to non-logical terms. If a sentence is true in every model, its truth doesn't depend on those non-logical terms. Hence the validity of an argument comes from its logical form. Thus models explain logical validity. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Thus you get a rigorous account of logical validity by only allowing the rigorous input of model theory. This is the modern strategy of analytic philosophy. But is 'it's red so it's coloured' logically valid? |
18751 | Natural language includes connectives like 'because' which are not truth-functional [McGee] |
Full Idea: Natural language includes connectives that are not truth-functional. In order for 'p because q' to be true, both p and q have to be true, but knowing the simpler sentences are true doesn't determine whether the larger sentence is true. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 2) |
18761 | Second-order variables need to range over more than collections of first-order objects [McGee] |
Full Idea: To get any advantage from moving to second-order logic, we need to assign to second-order variables a role different from merely ranging over collections made up of things the first-order variables range over. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 7) | |
A reaction: Thus it is exciting if they range over genuine properties, but not so exciting if you merely characterise those properties as sets of first-order objects. This idea leads into a discussion of plural quantification. |
18753 | An ontologically secure semantics for predicate calculus relies on sets [McGee] |
Full Idea: We can get a less ontologically perilous presentation of the semantics of the predicate calculus by using sets instead of concepts. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
A reaction: The perilous versions rely on Fregean concepts, and notably Russell's 'concept that does not fall under itself'. The sets, of course, have to be ontologically secure, and so will involve the iterative conception, rather than naive set theory. |
18754 | Logically valid sentences are analytic truths which are just true because of their logical words [McGee] |
Full Idea: Logically valid sentences are a species of analytic sentence, being true not just in virtue of the meanings of their words, but true in virtue of the meanings of their logical words. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
A reaction: A helpful link between logical truths and analytic truths, which had not struck me before. |
18757 | Soundness theorems are uninformative, because they rely on soundness in their proofs [McGee] |
Full Idea: Soundness theorems are seldom very informative, since typically we use informally, in proving the theorem, the very same rules whose soundness we are attempting to establish. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 5) | |
A reaction: [He cites Quine 1935] |
18760 | The culmination of Euclidean geometry was axioms that made all models isomorphic [McGee] |
Full Idea: One of the culminating achievements of Euclidean geometry was categorical axiomatisations, that describe the geometric structure so completely that any two models of the axioms are isomorphic. The axioms are second-order. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 7) | |
A reaction: [He cites Veblen 1904 and Hilbert 1903] For most mathematicians, categorical axiomatisation is the best you can ever dream of (rather than a single true axiomatisation). |
18430 | We accept properties because of type/tokens, reference, and quantification [Edwards] |
Full Idea: Three main reasons for thinking properties exist: the one-over-many argument (that a type can have many tokens), the reference argument (to understand predicates and singular terms), and the quantification argument (that we quantify over them). | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 1.1) | |
A reaction: [Bits in brackets are compressions of his explanations]. I don't find any of these remotely persuasive. Why would we infer how the world is, simply from how we talk about or reason about the world? His first reason is the only interesting one. |
18432 | Quineans say that predication is primitive and inexplicable [Edwards] |
Full Idea: The Quinean claims that the application of a predicate cannot, in principle, be explained - it is a 'primitive' fact. | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 4.4) | |
A reaction: I am not clear what 'principle' could endorse this claim. There just seems to be a possible failure of all the usual attempts at explaining predication. |
18437 | Resemblance nominalism requires a second entity to explain 'the rose is crimson' [Edwards] |
Full Idea: For resemblance nominalism the sentence 'the rose is crimson' commits us to at least one other entity that the rose resembles in order for it to be crimson. | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 5.5.2) | |
A reaction: If the theory really needs this, then it has just sunk without trace. It can't suddenly cease to be crimson when the last resembling entity disappears. |
18434 | That a whole is prior to its parts ('priority monism') is a view gaining in support [Edwards] |
Full Idea: The view of 'priority monism' - that the whole is prior to its parts - is controversial, but has been growing in support | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 5.4.4) | |
A reaction: The simple and plausible thought is, I take it, that parts only count as parts when a whole comes into existence, so a whole is needed to generate parts. Thus the whole must be prior to the parts. Fine by me. |
19216 | Propositions (such as 'that dog is barking') only exist if their items exist [Williamson] |
Full Idea: A proposition about an item exists only if that item exists... how could something be the proposition that that dog is barking in circumstances in which that dog does not exist? | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Necessary Existents [2002], p.240), quoted by Trenton Merricks - Propositions | |
A reaction: This is a view of propositions I can't make sense of. If I'm under an illusion that there is a dog barking nearby, when there isn't one, can I not say 'that dog is barking'? If I haven't expressed a proposition, what have I done? |
18762 | A maxim claims that if we are allowed to assert a sentence, that means it must be true [McGee] |
Full Idea: If our linguistic conventions entitle us to assert a sentence, they thereby make it true, because of the maxim that 'truth is the norm of assertion'. | |
From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 8) | |
A reaction: You could only really deny that maxim if you had no belief at all in truth, but then you can assert anything you like (with full entitlement). Maybe you can assert anything you like as long as it doesn't upset anyone? Etc. |