52 ideas
| 4643 | The Principle of Sufficient Reason does not presuppose that all explanations will be causal explanations [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: The Principle of Sufficient Reason does not presuppose that all explanations will be causal explanations. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §3.28) | |
| A reaction: This sounds a reasonable note of caution, but doesn't carry much weight unless some type of non-causal reason can be envisaged. God's free will? Our free will? The laws of causation? |
| 4633 | You cannot rationally deny the principle of non-contradiction, because all reasoning requires it [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Anyone who denies the principle of non-contradiction simultaneously affirms it; it cannot be rationally criticised, because it is presupposed by all rationality. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.12) | |
| A reaction: Nietzsche certainly wasn't afraid to ask why we should reject something because it is a contradiction. The 'logic of personal advantage' might allow logical contradictions. |
| 4635 | Dialectic aims at unified truth, unlike analysis, which divides into parts [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Dialectic can be said to aim at wholeness or unity, while 'analytic' thinking divides that with which it deals into parts. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §2.03) | |
| A reaction: I don't accept this division (linked here to Hegel). I am a fan of analysis, as practised by Aristotle, but it is like dismantling an engine to identify and clean the parts, before reassembling it more efficiently. |
| 4632 | 'Natural' systems of deduction are based on normal rational practice, rather than on axioms [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: A 'natural' system of deduction does not posit any axioms, but looks instead for its formulae to the practices of ordinary rationality. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.09) | |
| A reaction: Presumably there is some middle ground, where we attempt to infer the axioms of normal practice, and then build a strict system on them. We must be allowed to criticise 'normal' rationality, I hope. |
| 4631 | In ideal circumstances, an axiom should be such that no rational agent could possibly object to its use [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: In ideal circumstances, an axiom should be such that no rational agent could possibly object to its use. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.09) | |
| A reaction: Yes, but the trouble is that all our notions of 'rational' (giving reasons, being consistent) break down when we look at unsupported axioms. In what sense is something rational if it is self-evident? |
| 9724 | Until the 1960s the only semantics was truth-tables [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Until the 1960s standard truth-table semantics were the only ones that there were. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.10.1) | |
| A reaction: The 1960s presumably marked the advent of possible worlds. |
| 9703 | 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of objects having a relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs and that have that relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9705 | 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of all objects in the relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs on either side of the relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9704 | 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of objects being related to [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs and that are related to by the first objects. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9710 | We write F:A→B to indicate that A maps into B (the output of F on A is in B) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: We write F : A → B to indicate that A maps into B, that is, the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are all in B. If we add that F = B, then A maps 'onto' B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9707 | 'F(x)' is the unique value which F assumes for a value of x [Enderton] |
|
Full Idea:
F(x) is a 'function', which indicates the unique value which y takes in |
|
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9712 | A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair has the relation in both directions [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair in the set has the relation in both directions. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9713 | A relation is 'transitive' if it can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'transitive' on a set if the relation can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9699 | The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set. Thus: PA = {x : x ⊆ A}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9700 | Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty (i.e. they have no members in common). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9702 | A 'domain' of a relation is the set of members of ordered pairs in the relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'domain' of a relation is the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs that are members of the relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9701 | A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs. The ordering relation on the numbers 0-3 is captured by - in fact it is - the set of ordered pairs {<0,1>,<0,2>,<0,3>,<1,2>,<1,3>,<2,3>}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) | |
| A reaction: This can't quite be a definition of order among numbers, since it relies on the notion of a 'ordered' pair. |
| 9706 | A 'function' is a relation in which each object is related to just one other object [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'function' is a relation which is single-valued. That is, for each object, there is only one object in the function set to which that object is related. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9708 | A function 'maps A into B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are all in B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A function 'maps A into B' if the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are all in B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9709 | A function 'maps A onto B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are set B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A function 'maps A onto B' if the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are set B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9711 | A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member bears the relation to itself [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member of the set bears the relation to itself. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9714 | A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' if all pairs are either relations, or contain identical objects [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' on a set if every ordered pair is related (in either direction), or the objects are identical. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9717 | A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9715 | An 'equivalence relation' is a reflexive, symmetric and transitive binary relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: An 'equivalence relation' is a binary relation which is reflexive, and symmetric, and transitive. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9716 | We 'partition' a set into distinct subsets, according to each relation on its objects [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Equivalence classes will 'partition' a set. That is, it will divide it into distinct subsets, according to each relation on the set. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9722 | Inference not from content, but from the fact that it was said, is 'conversational implicature' [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The process is dubbed 'conversational implicature' when the inference is not from the content of what has been said, but from the fact that it has been said. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.7.3) |
| 11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
| A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
| 9718 | Validity is either semantic (what preserves truth), or proof-theoretic (following procedures) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The point of logic is to give an account of the notion of validity,..in two standard ways: the semantic way says that a valid inference preserves truth (symbol |=), and the proof-theoretic way is defined in terms of purely formal procedures (symbol |-). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.3..) | |
| A reaction: This division can be mirrored in mathematics, where it is either to do with counting or theorising about things in the physical world, or following sets of rules from axioms. Language can discuss reality, or play word-games. |
| 4638 | The principle of bivalence distorts reality, as when claiming that a person is or is not 'thin' [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Forcing everything into the straightjacket of bivalence seriously distorts the world. The problem is most acute in the case of vague concepts, such as thinness. It is not straightforwardly true or false that a person is thin. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §3.03) | |
| A reaction: Can't argue with that. Can we divide all our concepts into either bivalent or vague? Presumably both propositions and concepts could be bivalent. |
| 11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
| 11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
| 9721 | A logical truth or tautology is a logical consequence of the empty set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A is a logical truth (tautology) (|= A) iff it is a semantic consequence of the empty set of premises (φ |= A), that is, every interpretation makes A true. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.3.4) | |
| A reaction: So the final column of every line of the truth table will be T. |
| 9994 | A truth assignment to the components of a wff 'satisfy' it if the wff is then True [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A truth assignment 'satisfies' a formula, or set of formulae, if it evaluates as True when all of its components have been assigned truth values. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: [very roughly what Enderton says!] The concept becomes most significant when a large set of wff's is pronounced 'satisfied' after a truth assignment leads to them all being true. |
| 9719 | A proof theory is 'sound' if its valid inferences entail semantic validity [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If every proof-theoretically valid inference is semantically valid (so that |- entails |=), the proof theory is said to be 'sound'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7) |
| 9720 | A proof theory is 'complete' if semantically valid inferences entail proof-theoretic validity [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If every semantically valid inference is proof-theoretically valid (so that |= entails |-), the proof-theory is said to be 'complete'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7) |
| 9995 | Proof in finite subsets is sufficient for proof in an infinite set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If a wff is tautologically implied by a set of wff's, it is implied by a finite subset of them; and if every finite subset is satisfiable, then so is the whole set of wff's. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [Enderton's account is more symbolic] He adds that this also applies to models. It is a 'theorem' because it can be proved. It is a major theorem in logic, because it brings the infinite under control, and who doesn't want that? |
| 9996 | Expressions are 'decidable' if inclusion in them (or not) can be proved [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A set of expressions is 'decidable' iff there exists an effective procedure (qv) that, given some expression, will decide whether or not the expression is included in the set (i.e. doesn't contradict it). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: This is obviously a highly desirable feature for a really reliable system of expressions to possess. All finite sets are decidable, but some infinite sets are not. |
| 9997 | For a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can always be enumerated [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The Enumerability Theorem says that for a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can be effectively enumerated. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: There are criteria for what makes a 'reasonable' language (probably specified to ensure enumerability!). Predicates and functions must be decidable, and the language must be finite. |
| 4640 | If identity is based on 'true of X' instead of 'property of X' we get the Masked Man fallacy ('I know X but not Y') [Baggini /Fosl, by PG] |
| Full Idea: The Masked Man fallacy is when Leibniz's Law is taken as 'X and Y are identical if what is true of X is true of Y' (rather than being about properties). Then 'I know X' but 'I don't know Y' (e.g. my friend wearing a mask) would make X and Y non-identical. | |
| From: report of J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §3.17) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: As the book goes on to explain, Descartes is guilty of this when arguing that I necessarily know my mind but not my body, so they are different. Seems to me that Kripke falls into the same trap. |
| 4647 | 'I have the same car as you' is fine; 'I have the same fiancée as you' is not so good [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: If you found that I had the same car as you, I don't suppose you would care, but if you found I had the same fiancée as you, you might not be so happy. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §4.17) | |
| A reaction: A very nice illustration of the ambiguity of "same", and hence of identity. 'I had the same thought as you'. 'I have the same DNA as you'. |
| 4639 | Leibniz's Law is about the properties of objects; the Identity of Indiscernibles is about perception of objects [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Leibniz's Law ('if identical, must have same properties') defines identity according to the properties possessed by the object itself, but the Identity of Indiscernibles defines identity in terms of how things are conceived or grasped by the mind. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §3.16) | |
| A reaction: This is the heart of the problem of identity. We realists must fight for Leibniz's Law, and escort the Identity of Indiscernibles to the door. |
| 4646 | Is 'events have causes' analytic a priori, synthetic a posteriori, or synthetic a priori? [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Of the proposition that "all experienced events have causes", Descartes says this is analytic a priori, Hume says it is synthetic a posteriori, and Kant says it is synthetic a priori. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §4.01) | |
| A reaction: I am not sympathetic to Hume on this (though most people think he is right). I prefer the Kantian view, but he makes a very large claim. Something has to be intuitive. |
| 9723 | Sentences with 'if' are only conditionals if they can read as A-implies-B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Not all sentences using 'if' are conditionals. Consider 'if you want a banana, there is one in the kitchen'. The rough test is that a conditional can be rewritten as 'that A implies that B'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.6.4) |
| 4645 | 'A priori' does not concern how you learn a proposition, but how you show whether it is true or false [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: What makes something a priori is not the means by which it came to be known, but the means by which it can be shown to be true or false. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §4.01) | |
| A reaction: Helpful. Kripke in particular has labelled the notion as an epistemological one, but that does imply a method of acquiring it. Clearly I can learn an a priori truth by reading it the newspaper. |
| 4582 | Basic beliefs are self-evident, or sensual, or intuitive, or revealed, or guaranteed [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Sentence are held to be basic because they are self-evident or 'cataleptic' (Stoics), or rooted in sense data (positivists), or grasped by intuition (Platonists), or revealed by God, or grasped by faculties certified by God (Descartes). | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.01) | |
| A reaction: These are a bit blurred. Isn't intuition self-evident? Isn't divine guarantee a type of revelation? How about reason, experience or authority? |
| 4644 | A proposition such as 'some swans are purple' cannot be falsified, only verified [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: The problem with falsification is that it fails to work with logically particular claims such as 'some swans are purple'. Examining a million swans and finding no purple ones does not falsify the claim, as there might still be a purple swan out there. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §3.29) | |
| A reaction: Isn't it beautiful how unease about a theory (Popper's) slowly crystallises into an incredibly simple and devastating point? Maybe 'some swans are purple' isn't science unless there is a good reason to propose it? |
| 4584 | The problem of induction is how to justify our belief in the uniformity of nature [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: At its simplest, the problem of induction can be boiled down to the problem of justifying our belief in the uniformity of nature. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.03) | |
| A reaction: An easy solution to the problem of induction: we treat the uniformity of nature as axiomatic, and then induction is all reasoning which is based on that axiom. The axiom is a working hypothesis, which may begin to appear false. Anomalies are hard. |
| 4583 | How can an argument be good induction, but poor deduction? [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: The problem of induction is the problem of how an argument can be good reasoning as induction but poor reasoning as deduction. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.03) | |
| A reaction: Nicely put, and a good defence of Hume against the charge that he has just muddled induction and deduction. All reasoning, we insist, should be consistent, or it isn't reasoning. |
| 4634 | Abduction aims at simplicity, testability, coherence and comprehensiveness [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: There are some 'principles of selection' in abduction: 1) prefer simple explanations, 2) prefer coherent explanations (consistent with what is already held true), 3) prefer theories that make testable predictions, and 4) be comprehensive in scope. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §2.01) | |
| A reaction: Note that these are desirable, but not necessary (pace Ockham and Ayer). I cannot think of anything to add to the list, so I will adopt it. Abduction is the key to rationality. |
| 4637 | To see if an explanation is the best, it is necessary to investigate the alternative explanations [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: The only way to be sure we have the best explanation is to investigate the alternatives and see if they are any better. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §3.01) | |
| A reaction: Unavoidable! Since I love 'best explanation', I now seem to be committed to investigation every mad theory that comes up, just in case it is better. I hope I am allowed to reject after a very quick sniff. |
| 4629 | Consistency is the cornerstone of rationality [Baggini /Fosl] |
| Full Idea: Consistency is the cornerstone of rationality. | |
| From: J Baggini / PS Fosl (The Philosopher's Toolkit [2003], §1.06) | |
| A reaction: This is right, and is a cornerstone of Kant's approach to ethics. Rational beings must follow principles - in order to be consistent in their behaviour. 'Consistent' now requires a definition…. |
| 11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |