14 ideas
| 10061 | The If-thenist view only seems to work for the axiomatised portions of mathematics [Musgrave] |
| 10065 | Perhaps If-thenism survives in mathematics if we stick to first-order logic [Musgrave] |
| 10049 | Logical truths may contain non-logical notions, as in 'all men are men' [Musgrave] |
| 10050 | A statement is logically true if it comes out true in all interpretations in all (non-empty) domains [Musgrave] |
| 10058 | No two numbers having the same successor relies on the Axiom of Infinity [Musgrave] |
| 10062 | Formalism seems to exclude all creative, growing mathematics [Musgrave] |
| 10063 | Formalism is a bulwark of logical positivism [Musgrave] |
| 12354 | A 'categorial' property is had by virtue of being or having an item from a category [Wedin] |
| 12358 | Substance is a principle and a kind of cause [Wedin] |
| 12346 | Form explains why some matter is of a certain kind, and that is explanatory bedrock [Wedin] |
| 12314 | Audience-relative explanation, or metaphysical explanation based on information? [Stanford] |
| 12313 | Explanation is for curiosity, control, understanding, to make meaningful, or to give authority [Stanford] |
| 12315 | We can explain by showing constitution, as well as showing causes [Stanford] |
| 10060 | Logical positivists adopted an If-thenist version of logicism about numbers [Musgrave] |