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will not be published.

 
Wessel I 346
Modality/Lorenzen/Wessel: it is assumed a certain group of people has accepted a certain system of statements W as true. From these people, all statements which follow logical from these statements are then recognized as true.
>Dialogical logic, cf. >Logical omniscience, cf. >Scorekeeping model.
Lorenzen regards this as meaningful only for future statements.
Knowledge/Lorenzen/Wessel: for Lorenzen, it follows that everything we know is necessary with regard to this knowledge.
>Necessity.
Tradition: For example, if we know that in a pea pod are five peas and that it contains protein. This is only the second necessary knowledge. According to Lorenzen, both statements are necessary knowledge. (WesselVsLorenzen).
>Facts, >Contingency.
Modality/WesselVsLorenzen: too broad a view. That all knowledge is supposed to be necessary is a "fatalistic consequence".
>Fatalism.

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.