Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 144
Law/Laws of Nature/LoN/Language/Interpretation/WittgensteinVsArmstrong/Nozick: laws cannot be formulated linguistically, because they can always be interpreted differently.
>Rule Following, >Interpretation,
>Laws, >Laws of nature, >Laws/Armstrong, >L. Wittgenstein, >D. Armstrong.
II 145
Event/Law/LoN/Relation/Hume/Nozick: Hume: the relations between events are not logical. - The connection between the event and the law cannot be causal.
>Causality/Hume, >Causal laws, >Causal relation, >Events.
Another problem: logical connections have to be interpreted in turn.
>Logic, >Necessity, >de re necessity.
II 146
If the interpretation should be fixed, then the law should include something analogous to reflexive self reference. - This is mysterious itself.
>Self-reference.
Hence, we must not treat laws related with statements. - Because of Gödel there is probably not a "picture of all the facts" from which all factual statements can be derived.
Determinism/Nozick: therefore should not rely on derivability from causal laws.
>Derivation, >Derivability, >Determinism, >K. Gödel.
II 146
Law/fact/general/special/make true/Nozick: if a law is not treated as a quasi-statement but as a general fact, how can it make individual states true? - How can "make true" be a real relation between facts? Then it must be related to causality. Thereby, the problems would be repeated. - That laws should limit facts, only names the problem.
>Truth, >Description levels, >Levels/order.
II 147
If laws are mere descriptions, they explain nothing. - If they are to be mere conjunctions of events, then there is no fundamentality and no hierarchy.
>Conjunction.
But: Fundamental orders may be variously interpreted or axiomatized again.
>Order, >Facts, >World, >Totality.
II 148
Instead fundamental order: "organic unity".
Problem: this is not a justification. - Analogous to the artwork.
Problem: Justification needs again a fundamental order.
Possible Worlds with reflexive self-subsumption could be more coherent, than those without reflexivity.
>Possible worlds.
Then the question of why a particular statement applies, is repeated. - The problem of the relationship between facts and laws cannot be solved here.
>Explanation.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.