Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Causality: Production and Propagation', 'Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis' and 'Non-foundationalist epistemology'

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

---

7 ideas

2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 6. Coherence

8616	How can multiple statements, none of which is tenable, conjoin to yield a tenable conclusion? [Elgin]
	Full Idea: How can multiple statements, none of which is tenable, conjoin to yield a tenable conclusion? How can their relation to other less than tenable enhance their tenability?
	From: Catherine Z. Elgin (Non-foundationalist epistemology [2005], p.157)
	A reaction: Her example is witnesses to a crime. Bayes Theorem appears to deal with individual items. "The thief had green hair" becomes more likely with multiple testimony. This is a very persuasive first step towards justification as coherence.

8617	Statements that are consistent, cotenable and supportive are roughly true [Elgin]
	Full Idea: The best explanation of coherence (where the components of a coherent account must be mutually consistent, cotenable and supportive) is that the account is at least roughly true.
	From: Catherine Z. Elgin (Non-foundationalist epistemology [2005], p.158)
	A reaction: Note that she is NOT employing a coherence account of truth (which I take to be utterly wrong). It is notoriously difficult to define coherence. If the components must be 'tenable', they have epistemic status apart from their role in coherence.

6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 10. Constructivism / a. Constructivism

14248	We could accept the integers as primitive, then use sets to construct the rest [Cohen]
	Full Idea: A very reasonable position would be to accept the integers as primitive entities and then use sets to form higher entities.
	From: Paul J. Cohen (Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis [1966], 5.4), quoted by Oliver,A/Smiley,T - What are Sets and What are they For?
	A reaction: I find this very appealing, and the authority of this major mathematician adds support. I would say, though, that the integers are not 'primitive', but pick out (in abstraction) consistent features of the natural world.

13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / a. Coherence as justification

8618	Coherence is a justification if truth is its best explanation (not skill in creating fiction) [Elgin]
	Full Idea: The best explanation of the coherence of 'Middlemarch' lies in the novelist's craft. Coherence conduces to epistemic acceptability only when the best explanation of the coherence of a constellation of claims is that they are (at least roughly) true.
	From: Catherine Z. Elgin (Non-foundationalist epistemology [2005], p.160)
	A reaction: Yes. This combines my favourite inference to the best explanation (the favourite tool of us realists) with coherence as justification, where coherence can, crucially, have a social dimension. I begin to think this is the correct account of justification.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation

8412	A causal interaction is when two processes intersect, and correlated modifications persist afterwards [Salmon]
	Full Idea: When two processes intersect, and they undergo correlated modifications which persist after the intersection, I shall say that the intersection is a causal interaction. I take this as a fundamental causal concept.
	From: Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §4)
	A reaction: There may be a problem individuating processes, just as there is for events. I like this approach to causation, which is ontologically sparse, and fits in with the scientific worldview. Change of properties sounds precise, but isn't. Stick to processes.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 5. Direction of causation

8413	Cause must come first in propagations of causal interactions, but interactions are simultaneous [Salmon]
	Full Idea: In a typical cause-effect situation (a 'propagation') cause must precede effect, for propagation over a finite time interval is an essential feature. In an 'interaction', an intersection of processes resulting in change, we have simultaneity.
	From: Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §8)
	A reaction: This takes the direction of time as axiomatic, and quite right too. Salmon isn't addressing the real difficulty, though, which is that the resultant laws are usually held to be time-reversible, which is a bit of a puzzle.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 8. Particular Causation / b. Causal relata

8411	Instead of localised events, I take enduring and extended processes as basic to causation [Salmon]
	Full Idea: I propose to approach causality by taking processes rather than events as basic entities. Events are relatively localised in space and time, while processes have much greater temporal duration, and, in many cases, much greater spatial extent.
	From: Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §2)
	A reaction: This strikes me as an incredibly promising proposal, not just in our understanding of causation, but for our general metaphysics and understanding of nature. See Idea 4931, for example. Vague events and processes blend into one another.