18 ideas
19463 | Induction assumes some uniformity in nature, or that in some respects the future is like the past [Ayer] |
Full Idea: In all inductive reasoning we make the assumption that there is a measure of uniformity in nature; or, roughly speaking, that the future will, in the appropriate respects, resemble the past. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.viii) | |
A reaction: I would say that nature is 'stable'. Nature changes, so a global assumption of total uniformity is daft. Do we need some global uniformity assumptions, if the induction involved is local? I would say yes. Are all inductions conditional on this? |
12204 | The logic of metaphysical necessity is S5 [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: It is a widely accepted thesis that the logic of metaphysical necessity is S5. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §5) | |
A reaction: Rumfitt goes on to defend this standard view (against Dummett's defence of S4). The point, I take it, is that one can only assert that something is 'true in all possible worlds' only when the worlds are all accessible to one another. |
12195 | Soundness in argument varies with context, and may be achieved very informally indeed [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: Our ordinary standards for deeming arguments to be sound vary greatly from context to context. Even the package tourist's syllogism ('It's Tuesday, so this is Belgium') may meet the operative standards for soundness. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) | |
A reaction: No doubt one could spell out the preconceptions of package tourist reasoning, and arrive at the logical form of the implication which is being offered. |
12199 | There is a modal element in consequence, in assessing reasoning from suppositions [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: There is a modal element in consequence, in its applicability to assessing reasoning from suppositions. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) |
12201 | We reject deductions by bad consequence, so logical consequence can't be deduction [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: A rule is to be rejected if it enables us to deduce from some premisses a purported conclusion that does not follow from them in the broad sense. The idea that deductions answer to consequence is incomprehensible if consequence consists in deducibility. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) |
12194 | Contradictions include 'This is red and not coloured', as well as the formal 'B and not-B' [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: Overt contradictions include formal contradictions of form 'B and not B', but I also take them to include 'This is red all over and green all over' and 'This is red and not coloured'. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) |
12198 | Geometrical axioms in logic are nowadays replaced by inference rules (which imply the logical truths) [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: The geometrical style of formalization of logic is now little more than a quaint anachronism, largely because it fails to show logical truths for what they are: simply by-products of rules of inference that are applicable to suppositions. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §1) | |
A reaction: This is the rejection of Russell-style axiom systems in favour of Gentzen-style natural deduction systems (starting from rules). Rumfitt quotes Dummett in support. |
14532 | A distinctive type of necessity is found in logical consequence [Rumfitt, by Hale/Hoffmann,A] |
Full Idea: Rumfitt argues that there is a distinctive notion of necessity implicated in the notion of logical consequence. | |
From: report of Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010]) by Bob Hale/ Aviv Hoffmann - Introduction to 'Modality' 2 |
12200 | A logically necessary statement need not be a priori, as it could be unknowable [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: There is no reason to suppose that any statement that is logically necessary (in the present sense) is knowable a priori. ..If a statement is logically necessary, its negation will yield a contradiction, but that does not imply that someone could know it. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) | |
A reaction: This remark is aimed at Dorothy Edgington, who holds the opposite view. Rumfitt largely defends McFetridge's view (q.v.). |
12193 | Logical necessity is when 'necessarily A' implies 'not-A is contradictory' [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: By the notion of 'logical necessity' I mean that there is a sense of 'necessary' for which 'It is necessary that A' implies and is implied by 'It is logically contradictory that not A'. ...From this, logical necessity is implicated in logical consequence. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) | |
A reaction: Rumfitt expresses a commitment to classical logic at this point. We will need to be quite sure what we mean by 'contradiction', which will need a clear notion of 'truth'.... |
12202 | Narrow non-modal logical necessity may be metaphysical, but real logical necessity is not [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: While Fine suggests defining a narrow notion of logical necessity in terms of metaphysical necessity by 'restriction' (to logical truths that can be defined in non-modal terms), this seems unpromising for broad logical necessity, which is modal. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] He cites Kit Fine 2002. Rumfitt glosses the non-modal definitions as purely formal. The metaphysics lurks somewhere in the proof. |
12203 | If a world is a fully determinate way things could have been, can anyone consider such a thing? [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: A world is usually taken to be a fully determinate way that things could have been; but then one might seriously wonder whether anyone is capable of 'considering' such a thing at all. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §4) | |
A reaction: This has always worried me. If I say 'maybe my coat is in the car', I would hate to think that I had to be contemplating some entire possible world (including all the implications of my coat not being on the hat stand). |
19459 | To say 'I am not thinking' must be false, but it might have been true, so it isn't self-contradictory [Ayer] |
Full Idea: To say 'I am not thinking' is self-stultifying since if it is said intelligently it must be false: but it is not self-contradictory. The proof that it is not self-contradictory is that it might have been false. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.iii) | |
A reaction: If it doesn't imply a contradiction, then it is not a necessary truth, which is what it is normally taken to be. Is 'This is a sentence' necessarily true? It might not have been one, if the rules of English syntax changed recently. |
19460 | 'I know I exist' has no counterevidence, so it may be meaningless [Ayer] |
Full Idea: If there is no experience at all of finding out that one is not conscious, or that one does not exist, ..it is tempting to say that sentences like 'I exist', 'I am conscious', 'I know that I exist' do not express genuine propositions. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.iii) | |
A reaction: This is, of course, an application of the somewhat discredited verification principle, but the fact that strictly speaking the principle has been sort of refuted does not mean that we should not take it seriously, and be influenced by it. |
19461 | Knowing I exist reveals nothing at all about my nature [Ayer] |
Full Idea: To know that one exists is not to know anything about oneself any more than knowing that 'this' exists is knowing anything about 'this'. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.iii) | |
A reaction: Descartes proceeds to define himself as a 'thinking thing', inferring that thinking is his essence. Ayer casts nice doubt on that. |
19464 | We only discard a hypothesis after one failure if it appears likely to keep on failing [Ayer] |
Full Idea: Why should a hypothesis which has failed the test be discarded unless this shows it to be unreliable; that is, having failed once it is likely to fail again? There is no contradiction in a hypothesis that was falsified being more likely to pass in future. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.viii) | |
A reaction: People may become more likely to pass a test after they have failed at the first attempt. Birds which fail to fly at the first attempt usually achieve total mastery of it. There are different types of hypothesis here. |
19462 | Induction passes from particular facts to other particulars, or to general laws, non-deductively [Ayer] |
Full Idea: Inductive reasoning covers all cases in which we pass from a particular statement of fact, or set of them, to a factual conclusion which they do not formally entail. The inference may be to a general law, or by analogy to another particular instance. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.viii) | |
A reaction: My preferred definition is 'learning from experience' - which I take to be the most rational behaviour you could possibly imagine. I don't think a definition should be couched in terms of 'objects' or 'particulars'. |
5845 | Niceratus learnt the whole of Homer by heart, as a guide to goodness [Xenophon] |
Full Idea: Niceratus said that his father, because he was concerned to make him a good man, made him learn the whole works of Homer, and he could still repeat by heart the entire 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey'. | |
From: Xenophon (Symposium [c.391 BCE], 3.5) | |
A reaction: This clearly shows the status which Homer had in the teaching of morality in the time of Socrates, and it is precisely this acceptance of authority which he was challenging, in his attempts to analyse the true basis of virtue |