17 ideas
17824 | The master science is physical objects divided into sets [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The master science can be thought of as the theory of sets with the entire range of physical objects as ur-elements. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], II) | |
A reaction: This sounds like Quine's view, since we have to add sets to our naturalistic ontology of objects. It seems to involve unrestricted mereology to create normal objects. |
17825 | Set theory (unlike the Peano postulates) can explain why multiplication is commutative [Maddy] |
Full Idea: If you wonder why multiplication is commutative, you could prove it from the Peano postulates, but the proof offers little towards an answer. In set theory Cartesian products match 1-1, and n.m dots when turned on its side has m.n dots, which explains it. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], II) | |
A reaction: 'Turning on its side' sounds more fundamental than formal set theory. I'm a fan of explanation as taking you to the heart of the problem. I suspect the world, rather than set theory, explains the commutativity. |
17826 | Standardly, numbers are said to be sets, which is neat ontology and epistemology [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The standard account of the relationship between numbers and sets is that numbers simply are certain sets. This has the advantage of ontological economy, and allows numbers to be brought within the epistemology of sets. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
A reaction: Maddy votes for numbers being properties of sets, rather than the sets themselves. See Yourgrau's critique. |
17828 | Numbers are properties of sets, just as lengths are properties of physical objects [Maddy] |
Full Idea: I propose that ...numbers are properties of sets, analogous, for example, to lengths, which are properties of physical objects. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
A reaction: Are lengths properties of physical objects? A hole in the ground can have a length. A gap can have a length. Pure space seems to contain lengths. A set seems much more abstract than its members. |
17827 | Sets exist where their elements are, but numbers are more like universals [Maddy] |
Full Idea: A set of things is located where the aggregate of those things is located, ...but a number is simultaneously located at many different places (10 in my hand, and a baseball team) ...so numbers seem more like universals than particulars. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
A reaction: My gut feeling is that Maddy's master idea (of naturalising sets by building them from ur-elements of natural objects) won't work. Sets can work fine in total abstraction from nature. |
17830 | Number theory doesn't 'reduce' to set theory, because sets have number properties [Maddy] |
Full Idea: I am not suggesting a reduction of number theory to set theory ...There are only sets with number properties; number theory is part of the theory of finite sets. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], V) |
17823 | If mathematical objects exist, how can we know them, and which objects are they? [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The popular challenges to platonism in philosophy of mathematics are epistemological (how are we able to interact with these objects in appropriate ways) and ontological (if numbers are sets, which sets are they). | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], I) | |
A reaction: These objections refer to Benacerraf's two famous papers - 1965 for the ontology, and 1973 for the epistemology. Though he relied too much on causal accounts of knowledge in 1973, I'm with him all the way. |
17829 | Number words are unusual as adjectives; we don't say 'is five', and numbers always come first [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Number words are not like normal adjectives. For example, number words don't occur in 'is (are)...' contexts except artificially, and they must appear before all other adjectives, and so on. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], IV) | |
A reaction: [She is citing Benacerraf's arguments] |
14296 | Dispositions are physical states of mechanism; when known, these replace the old disposition term [Quine] |
Full Idea: Each disposition, in my view, is a physical state or mechanism. ...In some cases nowadays we understand the physical details and set them forth explicitly in terms of the arrangement and interaction of small bodies. This replaces the old disposition. | |
From: Willard Quine (The Roots of Reference [1990], p.11), quoted by Stephen Mumford - Dispositions 01.3 | |
A reaction: A challenge to the dispositions and powers view of nature, one which rests on the 'categorical' structural properties, rather than the 'hypothetical' dispositions. But can we define a mechanism without mentioning its powers? |
21506 | A coherence theory of justification can combine with a correspondence theory of truth [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: There is no manifest absurdity in combining a coherence theory of justification with a correspondence theory of truth. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.1) | |
A reaction: His point is to sharply (and correctly) distinguish coherent justification from a coherence theory of truth. Personally I would recommend talking of a 'robust' theory of truth, without tricky commitment to 'correspondence' between very dissimilar things. |
21509 | There will always be a vast number of equally coherent but rival systems [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: On any plausible conception of coherence, there will always be many, probably infinitely many, different and incompatible systems of belief which are equally coherent. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.5) | |
A reaction: If 'infinitely many' theories are allowed, that blocks the coherentist hope that widening and precisifying the system will narrow down the options and offer some verisimilitude. If we stick to current English expression, that should keep them finite. |
21503 | Empirical coherence must attribute reliability to spontaneous experience [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: An empirical coherence theory needs, for the beliefs of a cognitive system to be even candidates for empirical justification, that the system must contain laws attributing a high degree of reliability to a variety of spontaneous cognitive beliefs. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 7.1) | |
A reaction: Wanting such a 'law' seems optimistic, and not in the spirit of true coherentism, which can individually evaluate each experiential belief. I'm not sure Bonjour's Observation Requirement is needed, since it is incoherent to neglect observations. |
21511 | A well written novel cannot possibly match a real belief system for coherence [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: It is not even minimally plausible that a well written novel ...would have the degree of coherence required to be a serious alternative to anyone's actual system of beliefs. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.5) | |
A reaction: This seems correct. 'Bleak House' is wonderfully consistent, but its elements are entirely verbal, and nothing occupies the space between the facts that are described. And Lady Dedlock is not in Debrett. I think this kills a standard objection. |
21510 | The objection that a negated system is equally coherent assume that coherence is consistency [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: Sometimes it is said that if one has an appropriately coherent system, an alternative system can be produced simply be negating all of the components of the first system. This would only be so if coherence amounted simply to consistency. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.5) | |
A reaction: I associate Russell with this original objection to coherentism. I formerly took this to be a serious problem, and am now relieved to see that it clearly isn't. |
21505 | A coherent system can be justified with initial beliefs lacking all credibility [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: It is simply not necessary in order for [the coherence] view to yield justification to suppose that cognitively spontaneous beliefs have some degree of initial or independent credibility. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 7.2) | |
A reaction: This is thoroughly and rather persuasively criticised by Erik Olson. But he always focuses on the coherence of a 'system' with multiple beliefs. I take the credibility of each individual belief to need coherent assessment against a full background. |
21504 | The best explanation of coherent observations is they are caused by and correspond to reality [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: The best explanation for a stable system of beliefs which rely on observation is that the beliefs are caused by what they depict, and the system roughly corresponds to the independent reality it describes. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 8.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Anyone who links best explanation to coherence (and to induction) warms the cockles of my heart. Erik Olson offers a critique, but doesn't convince me. The alternative is to find a better explanation (than reality), or give up. |
21508 | Anomalies challenge the claim that the basic explanations are actually basic [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: The distinctive significance of anomalies lies in the fact that they undermine the claim of the allegedly basic explanatory principles to be genuinely basic. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.3) | |
A reaction: This seems plausible, suggesting that (rather than an anomaly flatly 'falsifying' a theory) an anomaly may just demand a restructuring or reconceptualising of the theory. |