15 ideas
| 17082 | Paradox: why do you analyse if you know it, and how do you analyse if you don't? [Ruben] |
| 10185 | Set theory is the standard background for modern mathematics [Burgess] |
| 10184 | Structuralists take the name 'R' of the reals to be a variable ranging over structures, not a structure [Burgess] |
| 10189 | There is no one relation for the real number 2, as relations differ in different models [Burgess] |
| 10186 | If set theory is used to define 'structure', we can't define set theory structurally [Burgess] |
| 10187 | Abstract algebra concerns relations between models, not common features of all the models [Burgess] |
| 10188 | How can mathematical relations be either internal, or external, or intrinsic? [Burgess] |
| 16079 | De re modal predicates are ambiguous [Lewis, by Rudder Baker] |
| 17087 | The 'symmetry thesis' says explanation and prediction only differ pragmatically [Ruben] |
| 17081 | Usually explanations just involve giving information, with no reference to the act of explanation [Ruben] |
| 17092 | An explanation needs the world to have an appropriate structure [Ruben] |
| 17090 | Most explanations are just sentences, not arguments [Ruben] |
| 17094 | The causal theory of explanation neglects determinations which are not causal [Ruben] |
| 17088 | Reducing one science to another is often said to be the perfect explanation [Ruben] |
| 17089 | Facts explain facts, but only if they are conceptualised or named appropriately [Ruben] |