102 ideas
13466 | We are all post-Kantians, because he set the current agenda for philosophy [Hart,WD] |
13477 | The problems are the monuments of philosophy [Hart,WD] |
13515 | To study abstract problems, some knowledge of set theory is essential [Hart,WD] |
16841 | Good inference has mechanism, precision, scope, simplicity, fertility and background fit [Lipton] |
16854 | Contrary pairs entail contradictions; one member entails negation of the other [Lipton] |
15927 | Definition just needs negation, known variables, conjunction, disjunction, substitution and quantification [Weyl, by Lavine] |
13469 | Tarski showed how we could have a correspondence theory of truth, without using 'facts' [Hart,WD] |
13504 | Truth for sentences is satisfaction of formulae; for sentences, either all sequences satisfy it (true) or none do [Hart,WD] |
13503 | A first-order language has an infinity of T-sentences, which cannot add up to a definition of truth [Hart,WD] |
13500 | Conditional Proof: infer a conditional, if the consequent can be deduced from the antecedent [Hart,WD] |
13502 | ∃y... is read as 'There exists an individual, call it y, such that...', and not 'There exists a y such that...' [Hart,WD] |
13456 | Set theory articulates the concept of order (through relations) [Hart,WD] |
13497 | Nowadays ZFC and NBG are the set theories; types are dead, and NF is only useful for the whole universe [Hart,WD] |
13443 | ∈ relates across layers, while ⊆ relates within layers [Hart,WD] |
13442 | Without the empty set we could not form a∩b without checking that a and b meet [Hart,WD] |
13493 | In the modern view, foundation is the heart of the way to do set theory [Hart,WD] |
13495 | Foundation Axiom: an nonempty set has a member disjoint from it [Hart,WD] |
13461 | We can choose from finite and evident sets, but not from infinite opaque ones [Hart,WD] |
13462 | With the Axiom of Choice every set can be well-ordered [Hart,WD] |
13516 | If we accept that V=L, it seems to settle all the open questions of set theory [Hart,WD] |
13441 | Naïve set theory has trouble with comprehension, the claim that every predicate has an extension [Hart,WD] |
13494 | The iterative conception may not be necessary, and may have fixed points or infinitely descending chains [Hart,WD] |
13457 | A 'partial ordering' is irreflexive and transitive; the sets are ordered, but not the subsets [Hart,WD] |
13458 | A partial ordering becomes 'total' if any two members of its field are comparable [Hart,WD] |
13460 | 'Well-ordering' must have a least member, so it does the natural numbers but not the integers [Hart,WD] |
13490 | Von Neumann defines α<β as α∈β [Hart,WD] |
13481 | Maybe sets should be rethought in terms of the even more basic categories [Hart,WD] |
13506 | The universal quantifier can't really mean 'all', because there is no universal set [Hart,WD] |
13512 | Modern model theory begins with the proof of Los's Conjecture in 1962 [Hart,WD] |
13505 | Model theory studies how set theory can model sets of sentences [Hart,WD] |
13511 | Model theory is mostly confined to first-order theories [Hart,WD] |
13513 | Models are ways the world might be from a first-order point of view [Hart,WD] |
13496 | First-order logic is 'compact': consequences of a set are consequences of a finite subset [Hart,WD] |
13484 | Berry's Paradox: we succeed in referring to a number, with a term which says we can't do that [Hart,WD] |
13482 | The Burali-Forti paradox is a crisis for Cantor's ordinals [Hart,WD] |
13507 | The machinery used to solve the Liar can be rejigged to produce a new Liar [Hart,WD] |
13459 | The less-than relation < well-orders, and partially orders, and totally orders the ordinal numbers [Hart,WD] |
13491 | The axiom of infinity with separation gives a least limit ordinal ω [Hart,WD] |
13463 | There are at least as many infinite cardinals as transfinite ordinals (because they will map) [Hart,WD] |
13492 | Von Neumann's ordinals generalise into the transfinite better, because Zermelo's ω is a singleton [Hart,WD] |
13446 | 19th century arithmetization of analysis isolated the real numbers from geometry [Hart,WD] |
13509 | We can establish truths about infinite numbers by means of induction [Hart,WD] |
13474 | Euclid has a unique parallel, spherical geometry has none, and saddle geometry has several [Hart,WD] |
13471 | Mathematics makes existence claims, but philosophers usually say those are never analytic [Hart,WD] |
13488 | Mass words do not have plurals, or numerical adjectives, or use 'fewer' [Hart,WD] |
16814 | Understanding is not mysterious - it is just more knowledge, of causes [Lipton] |
13480 | Fregean self-evidence is an intrinsic property of basic truths, rules and definitions [Hart,WD] |
13476 | The failure of key assumptions in geometry, mereology and set theory throw doubt on the a priori [Hart,WD] |
16825 | How do we distinguish negative from irrelevant evidence, if both match the hypothesis? [Lipton] |
16851 | The inference to observables and unobservables is almost the same, so why distinguish them? [Lipton] |
16799 | Inductive inference is not proof, but weighing evidence and probability [Lipton] |
16798 | We infer from evidence by working out what would explain that evidence [Lipton] |
16856 | It is more impressive that relativity predicted Mercury's orbit than if it had accommodated it [Lipton] |
16857 | Predictions are best for finding explanations, because mere accommodations can be fudged [Lipton] |
16827 | If we make a hypothesis about data, then a deduction, where does the hypothesis come from? [Lipton] |
16804 | Induction is repetition, instances, deduction, probability or causation [Lipton] |
16823 | Standard induction does not allow for vertical inferences, to some unobservable lower level [Lipton] |
16800 | An inductive inference is underdetermined, by definition [Lipton] |
16858 | We can argue to support our beliefs, so induction will support induction, for believers in induction [Lipton] |
16832 | If something in ravens makes them black, it may be essential (definitive of ravens) [Lipton] |
16836 | My shoes are not white because they lack some black essence of ravens [Lipton] |
16831 | A theory may explain the blackness of a raven, but say nothing about the whiteness of shoes [Lipton] |
16833 | We can't turn non-black non-ravens into ravens, to test the theory [Lipton] |
16834 | To pick a suitable contrast to ravens, we need a hypothesis about their genes [Lipton] |
16802 | Bayes seems to rule out prior evidence, since that has a probability of one [Lipton] |
16801 | A hypothesis is confirmed if an unlikely prediction comes true [Lipton] |
16837 | Bayes involves 'prior' probabilities, 'likelihood', 'posterior' probability, and 'conditionalising' [Lipton] |
16839 | Explanation may be an important part of implementing Bayes's Theorem [Lipton] |
16803 | Bayes is too liberal, since any logical consequence of a hypothesis confirms it [Lipton] |
16850 | Explanation may describe induction, but may not show how it justifies, or leads to truth [Lipton] |
16807 | An explanation gives the reason the phenomenon occurred [Lipton] |
16808 | An explanation is what makes the unfamiliar familiar to us [Lipton] |
16806 | An explanation is what is added to knowledge to yield understanding [Lipton] |
16822 | Seaching for explanations is a good way to discover the structure of the world [Lipton] |
16816 | In 'contrastive' explanation there is a fact and a foil - why that fact, rather than this foil? [Lipton] |
16826 | With too many causes, find a suitable 'foil' for contrast, and the field narrows right down [Lipton] |
16811 | An explanation unifies a phenomenon with our account of other phenomena [Lipton] |
16810 | Deduction explanation is too easy; any law at all will imply the facts - together with the facts! [Lipton] |
16829 | We reject deductive explanations if they don't explain, not if the deduction is bad [Lipton] |
16809 | Good explanations may involve no laws and no deductions [Lipton] |
16812 | An explanation shows why it was necessary that the effect occurred [Lipton] |
16846 | A cause may not be an explanation [Lipton] |
16813 | To explain is to give either the causal history, or the causal mechanism [Lipton] |
16815 | Mathematical and philosophical explanations are not causal [Lipton] |
16849 | Explanations may be easier to find than causes [Lipton] |
16848 | Causal inferences are clearest when we can manipulate things [Lipton] |
16842 | We want to know not just the cause, but how the cause operated [Lipton] |
16840 | To maximise probability, don't go beyond your data [Lipton] |
16824 | Is Inference to the Best Explanation nothing more than inferring the likeliest cause? [Lipton] |
16817 | Best Explanation as a guide to inference is preferable to best standard explanations [Lipton] |
16818 | The 'likeliest' explanation is the best supported; the 'loveliest' gives the most understanding [Lipton] |
16819 | IBE is inferring that the best potential explanation is the actual explanation [Lipton] |
16820 | Finding the 'loveliest' potential explanation links truth to understanding [Lipton] |
16828 | IBE is not passive treatment of data, but involves feedback between theory and data search [Lipton] |
16844 | A contrasting difference is the cause if it offers the best explanation [Lipton] |
16853 | We select possible explanations for explanatory reasons, as well as choosing among them [Lipton] |
16821 | Must we only have one explanation, and must all the data be made relevant? [Lipton] |
16838 | Bayesians say best explanations build up an incoherent overall position [Lipton] |
16855 | The best theory is boring: compare 'all planets move elliptically' with 'most of them do' [Lipton] |
16852 | Best explanation can't be a guide to truth, because the truth must precede explanation [Lipton] |
13475 | The Fregean concept of GREEN is a function assigning true to green things, and false to the rest [Hart,WD] |
16847 | Counterfactual causation makes causes necessary but not sufficient [Lipton] |