Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Strength of theories, philosophy: theories and systems can be compared in terms of their strength. With increasing expressiveness of a system, e.g. the possibility that statements refer to themselves, however, grows the risk of paradoxes. Strength and expressiveness do not always go hand in hand. Thus, e.g. the modal logical system S5, which is stronger than the system S4, is unable to establish a unique temporal order. Aspects of strength and weakness are inter alia the set of derivable sentences, or the size of the subject area of a theory or system. See also theories, systems, modal logic, axioms, axiom systems, expansion, mitigation, areas._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
St. Schiffer on Stronger/weaker - Dictionary of Arguments
I 44 Stronger/weaker/SchifferVsPsycho-Functionalism/SchifferVsBlock: it is unlikely that there is a theory that is weak enough to be true of all believers - and strong enough to apply to any individual belief - (to define the conditions). E.g. for sighted and visually impaired. Problem: there would have to be necessary conditions for belief defined. Strong/((s): determines the details weak/((s): applicable to many cases. >Psychofunctionalism._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Schi I St. Schiffer Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987 |
||
> Counter arguments against Schiffer
> Counter arguments in relation to Strength of Theories
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-24