74 ideas
| 4767 | Traditionally, rational beliefs are those which are justified by reasons [Psillos] |
| 8721 | An 'impredicative' definition seems circular, because it uses the term being defined [Friend] |
| 8680 | Classical definitions attempt to refer, but intuitionist/constructivist definitions actually create objects [Friend] |
| 3678 | Reductio ad absurdum proves an idea by showing that its denial produces contradiction [Friend] |
| 8705 | Anti-realists see truth as our servant, and epistemically contrained [Friend] |
| 8713 | In classical/realist logic the connectives are defined by truth-tables [Friend] |
| 8708 | Double negation elimination is not valid in intuitionist logic [Friend] |
| 8694 | Free logic was developed for fictional or non-existent objects [Friend] |
| 8665 | A 'proper subset' of A contains only members of A, but not all of them [Friend] |
| 8672 | A 'powerset' is all the subsets of a set [Friend] |
| 8677 | Set theory makes a minimum ontological claim, that the empty set exists [Friend] |
| 8666 | Infinite sets correspond one-to-one with a subset [Friend] |
| 8682 | Major set theories differ in their axioms, and also over the additional axioms of choice and infinity [Friend] |
| 8709 | The law of excluded middle is syntactic; it just says A or not-A, not whether they are true or false [Friend] |
| 8711 | Intuitionists read the universal quantifier as "we have a procedure for checking every..." [Friend] |
| 4810 | Valid deduction is monotonic - that is, it remains valid if further premises are added [Psillos] |
| 8675 | Paradoxes can be solved by talking more loosely of 'classes' instead of 'sets' [Friend] |
| 8674 | The Burali-Forti paradox asks whether the set of all ordinals is itself an ordinal [Friend] |
| 8667 | The 'integers' are the positive and negative natural numbers, plus zero [Friend] |
| 8668 | The 'rational' numbers are those representable as fractions [Friend] |
| 8670 | A number is 'irrational' if it cannot be represented as a fraction [Friend] |
| 8661 | The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction [Friend] |
| 8664 | Cardinal numbers answer 'how many?', with the order being irrelevant [Friend] |
| 8671 | The 'real' numbers (rationals and irrationals combined) is the Continuum, which has no gaps [Friend] |
| 8663 | Raising omega to successive powers of omega reveal an infinity of infinities [Friend] |
| 8662 | The first limit ordinal is omega (greater, but without predecessor), and the second is twice-omega [Friend] |
| 8669 | Between any two rational numbers there is an infinite number of rational numbers [Friend] |
| 8676 | Is mathematics based on sets, types, categories, models or topology? [Friend] |
| 8678 | Most mathematical theories can be translated into the language of set theory [Friend] |
| 8701 | The number 8 in isolation from the other numbers is of no interest [Friend] |
| 8702 | In structuralism the number 8 is not quite the same in different structures, only equivalent [Friend] |
| 8699 | Are structures 'ante rem' (before reality), or are they 'in re' (grounded in physics)? [Friend] |
| 8696 | Structuralist says maths concerns concepts about base objects, not base objects themselves [Friend] |
| 8695 | Structuralism focuses on relations, predicates and functions, with objects being inessential [Friend] |
| 8700 | 'In re' structuralism says that the process of abstraction is pattern-spotting [Friend] |
| 8681 | The big problem for platonists is epistemic: how do we perceive, intuit, know or detect mathematical facts? [Friend] |
| 8712 | Mathematics should be treated as true whenever it is indispensable to our best physical theory [Friend] |
| 8716 | Formalism is unconstrained, so cannot indicate importance, or directions for research [Friend] |
| 8706 | Constructivism rejects too much mathematics [Friend] |
| 8707 | Intuitionists typically retain bivalence but reject the law of excluded middle [Friend] |
| 4768 | The 'epistemic fallacy' is inferring what does exist from what can be known to exist [Psillos] |
| 8704 | Structuralists call a mathematical 'object' simply a 'place in a structure' [Friend] |
| 4807 | A good barometer will predict a storm, but not explain it [Psillos] |
| 4808 | If we say where Mars was two months ago, we offer an explanation without a prediction [Psillos] |
| 4811 | Induction (unlike deduction) is non-monotonic - it can be invalidated by new premises [Psillos] |
| 4812 | Explanation is either showing predictability, or showing necessity, or showing causal relations [Psillos] |
| 4802 | Just citing a cause does not enable us to understand an event; we also need a relevant law [Psillos] |
| 4804 | The 'covering law model' says only laws can explain the occurrence of single events [Psillos] |
| 4805 | If laws explain the length of a flagpole's shadow, then the shadow also explains the length of the pole [Psillos] |
| 4395 | There are non-causal explanations, most typically mathematical explanations [Psillos] |
| 4806 | An explanation can just be a 'causal story', without laws, as when I knock over some ink [Psillos] |
| 4404 | Maybe explanation is entirely relative to the interests and presuppositions of the questioner [Psillos] |
| 4803 | An explanation is the removal of the surprise caused by the event [Psillos] |
| 4769 | It is hard to analyse causation, if it is presupposed in our theory of the functioning of the mind [Psillos] |
| 8685 | Studying biology presumes the laws of chemistry, and it could never contradict them [Friend] |
| 8688 | Concepts can be presented extensionally (as objects) or intensionally (as a characterization) [Friend] |
| 4770 | Nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion [Psillos] |
| 4403 | We can't base our account of causation on explanation, because it is the wrong way round [Psillos] |
| 4399 | Causes clearly make a difference, are recipes for events, explain effects, and are evidence [Psillos] |
| 4400 | Theories of causation are based either on regularity, or on intrinsic relations of properties [Psillos] |
| 4789 | Three divisions of causal theories: generalist/singularist, intrinsic/extrinsic, reductive/non-reductive [Psillos] |
| 4790 | If causation is 'intrinsic' it depends entirely on the properties and relations of the cause and effect [Psillos] |
| 4402 | Empiricists tried to reduce causation to explanation, which they reduced to logic-plus-a-law [Psillos] |
| 4774 | Counterfactual claims about causation imply that it is more than just regular succession [Psillos] |
| 4793 | "All gold cubes are smaller than one cubic mile" is a true universal generalisation, but not a law [Psillos] |
| 4397 | Regularity doesn't seem sufficient for causation [Psillos] |
| 4792 | A Humean view of causation says it is regularities, and causal facts supervene on non-causal facts [Psillos] |
| 4801 | The regularity of a cock's crow is used to predict dawn, even though it doesn't cause it [Psillos] |
| 4401 | It is not a law of nature that all the coins in my pocket are euros, though it is a regularity [Psillos] |
| 4796 | Laws are sets of regularities within a simple and strong coherent system of wider regularities [Psillos] |
| 4799 | Dispositional essentialism can't explain its key distinction between essential and non-essential properties [Psillos] |
| 4780 | In some counterfactuals, the counterfactual event happens later than its consequent [Psillos] |
| 4791 | Counterfactual theories say causes make a difference - if c hadn't occurred, then e wouldn't occur [Psillos] |
| 12709 | Motion is not absolute, but consists in relation [Leibniz] |