46 ideas
11051 | Frege's logical approach dominates the analytical tradition [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Pure logic constantly controls Frege's philosophy, and in turn Frege's logically oriented philosophy constantly controls the analytic tradition. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.1) | |
A reaction: Hanna seeks to reintroduce the dreaded psychological aspect of logic, and I say 'good for him'. |
11054 | Scientism says most knowledge comes from the exact sciences [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Scientism says that the exact sciences are the leading sources of knowledge about the world. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.2) | |
A reaction: I almost agree, but I would describe the exact sciences as the chief 'evidence' for our knowledge, with the chief 'source' being our own ability to make coherent sense of the evidence. Exact sciences rest on mathematics. |
18781 | Inconsistency doesn't prevent us reasoning about some system [Mares] |
Full Idea: We are able to reason about inconsistent beliefs, stories, and theories in useful and important ways | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) |
11070 | 'Denying the antecedent' fallacy: φ→ψ, ¬φ, so ¬ψ [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The fallacy of 'denying the antecedent' is of the form φ→ψ, ¬φ, so ¬ψ. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 5.4) |
11071 | 'Affirming the consequent' fallacy: φ→ψ, ψ, so φ [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' is of the form φ→ψ, ψ, so φ. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 5.4) |
11088 | We can list at least fourteen informal fallacies [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Informal fallacies: appeals to force, circumstantial factors, ignorance, pity, popular consensus, authority, generalisation, confused causes, begging the question, complex questions, irrelevance, equivocation, black-and-white, slippery slope etc. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 7.3) |
11059 | Circular arguments are formally valid, though informally inadmissible [Hanna] |
Full Idea: A circular argument - one whose conclusion is to be found among its premises - is inadmissible in most informal contexts, even though it is formally valid. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 2.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably this is a matter of conversational implicature - that you are under a conventional obligation to say things which go somewhere, rather than circling around their starting place. |
11089 | Formally, composition and division fallacies occur in mereology [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Informal fallacies of composition and division go over into formal fallacies of mereological logic. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 7.3) |
18789 | Intuitionist logic looks best as natural deduction [Mares] |
Full Idea: Intuitionist logic appears most attractive in the form of a natural deduction system. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.5) |
18790 | Intuitionism as natural deduction has no rule for negation [Mares] |
Full Idea: In intuitionist logic each connective has one introduction and one elimination rule attached to it, but in the classical system we have to add an extra rule for negation. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.5) | |
A reaction: How very intriguing. Mares says there are other ways to achieve classical logic, but they all seem rather cumbersome. |
18787 | Three-valued logic is useful for a theory of presupposition [Mares] |
Full Idea: One reason for wanting a three-valued logic is to act as a basis of a theory of presupposition. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 3.1) | |
A reaction: [He cites Strawson 1950] The point is that you can get a result when the presupposition does not apply, as in talk of the 'present King of France'. |
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. |
11058 | Logic is explanatorily and ontologically dependent on rational animals [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Logic is explanatorily and ontologically dependent on rational animals. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.6) | |
A reaction: This is a splendid defiance of the standard Fregean view of logic as having an inner validity of its own, having nothing to do with the psychology of thinkers. But if Hanna is right, why does logical consequence seem to be necessary? |
11072 | Logic is personal and variable, but it has a universal core [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Beyond an innate and thus universally share protologic, each reasoner's mental logic is only more or less similar to the mental logic of any other reasoner. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 5.7) | |
A reaction: This is the main thesis of Hanna's book. I like the combination of this idea with Stephen Read's remark that each student should work out a personal logic which has their own private endorsement. |
18793 | Material implication (and classical logic) considers nothing but truth values for implications [Mares] |
Full Idea: The problem with material implication, and classical logic more generally, is that it considers only the truth value of formulas in deciding whether to make an implication stand between them. It ignores everything else. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 7.1) | |
A reaction: The obvious problem case is conditionals, and relevance is an obvious extra principle that comes to mind. |
18784 | In classical logic the connectives can be related elegantly, as in De Morgan's laws [Mares] |
Full Idea: Among the virtues of classical logic is the fact that the connectives are related to one another in elegant ways that often involved negation. For example, De Morgan's Laws, which involve negation, disjunction and conjunction. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) | |
A reaction: Mares says these enable us to take disjunction or conjunction as primitive, and then define one in terms of the other, using negation as the tool. |
11061 | Intensional consequence is based on the content of the concepts [Hanna] |
Full Idea: In intensional logic the consequence relation is based on the form or content of the concepts or properties expressed by the predicates. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 2.2) |
18786 | Excluded middle standardly implies bivalence; attacks use non-contradiction, De M 3, or double negation [Mares] |
Full Idea: On its standard reading, excluded middle tells us that bivalence holds. To reject excluded middle, we must reject either non-contradiction, or ¬(A∧B) ↔ (¬A∨¬B) [De Morgan 3], or the principle of double negation. All have been tried. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) |
18780 | Standard disjunction and negation force us to accept the principle of bivalence [Mares] |
Full Idea: If we treat disjunction in the standard way and take the negation of a statement A to mean that A is false, accepting excluded middle forces us also to accept the principle of bivalence, which is the dictum that every statement is either true or false. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) | |
A reaction: Mates's point is to show that passively taking the normal account of negation for granted has important implications. |
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. |
18782 | The connectives are studied either through model theory or through proof theory [Mares] |
Full Idea: In studying the logical connectives, philosophers of logic typically adopt the perspective of either model theory (givng truth conditions of various parts of the language), or of proof theory (where use in a proof system gives the connective's meaning). | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The commonest proof theory is natural deduction, giving rules for introduction and elimination. Mates suggests moving between the two views is illuminating. |
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. |
18783 | Many-valued logics lack a natural deduction system [Mares] |
Full Idea: Many-valued logics do not have reasonable natural deduction systems. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) |
18792 | Situation semantics for logics: not possible worlds, but information in situations [Mares] |
Full Idea: Situation semantics for logics consider not what is true in worlds, but what information is contained in situations. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 6.2) | |
A reaction: Since many theoretical physicists seem to think that 'information' might be the most basic concept of a natural ontology, this proposal is obviously rather appealing. Barwise and Perry are the authors of the theory. |
18785 | Consistency is semantic, but non-contradiction is syntactic [Mares] |
Full Idea: The difference between the principle of consistency and the principle of non-contradiction is that the former must be stated in a semantic metalanguage, whereas the latter is a thesis of logical systems. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) |
11063 | Logicism struggles because there is no decent theory of analyticity [Hanna] |
Full Idea: All versions of the thesis that arithmetic is reducible to logic remain questionable as long as no good theory of analyticity is available. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 2.4) | |
A reaction: He rejects the attempts by Frege, Wittgenstein and Carnap to provide a theory of analyticity. |
18788 | For intuitionists there are not numbers and sets, but processes of counting and collecting [Mares] |
Full Idea: For the intuitionist, talk of mathematical objects is rather misleading. For them, there really isn't anything that we should call the natural numbers, but instead there is counting. What intuitionists study are processes, such as counting and collecting. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.1) | |
A reaction: That is the first time I have seen mathematical intuitionism described in a way that made it seem attractive. One might compare it to a metaphysics based on processes. Apparently intuitionists struggle with infinite sets and real numbers. |
11055 | Supervenience can add covariation, upward dependence, and nomological connection [Hanna] |
Full Idea: 'Strong supervenience' involves necessary covariation of the properties, and upward dependence of higher level on lower level. ...If we add a nomological connection between the two, then we have 'superdupervenience'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Very helpful. A superdupervenient relationship between mind and brain would be rather baffling if they were not essentially the same thing. (which is what I take them to be). |
11083 | A sentence is necessary if it is true in a set of worlds, and nonfalse in the other worlds [Hanna] |
Full Idea: On my view, necessity is the truth of a sentence in every member of a set of possible worlds, together with its nonfalsity in every other possible worlds. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) |
11086 | Metaphysical necessity can be 'weak' (same as logical) and 'strong' (based on essences) [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Weak metaphysical necessity is either over the set of all logically possible worlds (in which case it is the same as logical necessity), or it is of a smaller set of worlds, and is determined by the underlying essence or nature of the actual world. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: I take the first to be of no interest, as I have no interest in a world which is somehow rated as logically possible, but is not naturally possible. The second type should the principle aim of all human cognitive enquiry. The strong version is synthetic. |
11084 | Logical necessity is truth in all logically possible worlds, because of laws and concepts [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Logical necessity is the truth of a sentence by virtue of logical laws or intrinsic conceptual connections alone, and thus true in all logically possible worlds. Put in traditional terms, logical necessity is analyticity. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) |
11085 | Nomological necessity is truth in all logically possible worlds with our laws [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Physical or nomological necessity is the truth of a sentence in all logically possible worlds governed by our actual laws of nature. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: Personally I think 'natural necessity' is the best label for this, as it avoids firm commitment to reductive physicalism, and it also avoids commitment to actual necessitating laws. |
11077 | Intuition includes apriority, clarity, modality, authority, fallibility and no inferences [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The nine features of intuition are: a mental act, apriority, content-comprehensiveness, clarity and distinctness, strict-modality-attributivity, authoritativeness,noninferentiality, cognitive indispensability, and fallibility. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.4) | |
A reaction: [See Hanna for a full explanation of this lot] Seems like a good stab at it. Note the trade-off between authority and fallibility. |
11080 | Intuition is more like memory, imagination or understanding, than like perception [Hanna] |
Full Idea: There is no reason why intuition should be cognitively analogous not to sense perception but instead to either memory, imagination, or conceptual understanding. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.5) | |
A reaction: It is Russell's spotting the analogy with memory that made me come to believe that a priori knowledge is possible, as long as we accept it as being fallible. [Hanna has a good discussion of intuition; he votes for the imagination analogy] |
11078 | Intuition is only outside the 'space of reasons' if all reasons are inferential [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Intuition is outside the 'space of reasons' if we assume that all reasons are inferential, but inside if we assume that reasons need not always be inferential. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.4) | |
A reaction: I take it that intuition can be firmly inside the space of reasons, and that not all reasons are inferential. |
11053 | Explanatory reduction is stronger than ontological reduction [Hanna] |
Full Idea: As standardly construed, reduction can be either explanatory or ontological. Explanatory reduction is the strongest sort of reduction. ...Ontological reduction can still have an 'explanatory gap'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.1) |
11081 | Imagination grasps abstracta, generates images, and has its own correctness conditions [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Three features of imagination are that its objects can be abstract, that it generates spatial images directly available to introspection, and its correctness conditions are not based on either efficacious causation or effective tracking. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: Hanna makes the imagination faculty central to our grasp of his proto-logic. |
11082 | Should we take the 'depictivist' or the 'descriptivist/propositionalist' view of mental imagery? [Hanna] |
Full Idea: In the debate in cognitive science on the nature of mental imagery, there is a 'depictivist' side (Johnson-Laird, Kosslyn, Shepard - good images are isomorphic), and a 'descriptivist' or 'propositionalist' side (Pylyshyn and others). | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: Hanna votes firmly in favour of the first view, and implies that they have more or less won the debate. |
11067 | Rational animals have a normative concept of necessity [Hanna] |
Full Idea: A rational animal is one that is a normative-reflective possessor of the concepts of necessity, certainty and unconditional obligation. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 4.0) | |
A reaction: The addition of obligation shows the Kantian roots of this. It isn't enough just to possess a few concepts. You wouldn't count as rational if you didn't desire truth, as well as understanding it. Robots be warned. |
11068 | One tradition says talking is the essence of rationality; the other says the essence is logic [Hanna] |
Full Idea: In the tradition of Descartes, Chomsky and Davidson, rational animals are essentially talking animals. But in the view of Kant, and perhaps Fodor, it is the cognitive capacity for logic that is the essence of human rationality. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 4.9) |
11047 | Hegelian holistic rationality is the capacity to seek coherence [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The 'holistic' (Hegelian) sense of rationality means the capacity for systematically seeking coherence (or 'reflective equilibrium') across a network or web of beliefs, desires, emotions, intentions and volitions. Traditionally 'the truth is the whole'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: On the whole this is my preferred view (which sounds Quinean as well as Hegelian), though I reject the notion that truth is a whole. I take coherence to be the hallmark of justification, though not of truth, and reason aims to justify. |
11048 | Humean Instrumental rationality is the capacity to seek contingent truths [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The 'instrumental' (Humean) sense of rationality means a capacity for generating or recognizing contingent truths, contextually normative rules, consequentialist obligations, and hypothetical 'ought' claims. Reason is 'the slave of the passions'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) |
11046 | Kantian principled rationality is recognition of a priori universal truths [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The 'principled' (Kantian) sense of rationality means the possession of a capacity for generating or recognizing necessary truths, a priori beliefs, strictly universal normative rules, nonconsequentialist moral obligations, and categorical 'ought' claims. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) |
11045 | Most psychologists are now cognitivists [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Most psychologists have now dropped behaviourism and adopted cognitivism: the thesis that the rational human mind is essentially an active innately specified information-processor. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) |
18791 | In 'situation semantics' our main concepts are abstracted from situations [Mares] |
Full Idea: In 'situation semantics' individuals, properties, facts, and events are treated as abstractions from situations. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 6.1) | |
A reaction: [Barwise and Perry 1983 are cited] Since I take the process of abstraction to be basic to thought, I am delighted to learn that someone has developed a formal theory based on it. I am immediately sympathetic to situation semantics. |
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). |