Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 21 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution | Peacocke | Avramides I 92 Beliefs/Desires/Attributions/Radical Interpretation/Peacocke/Avramidis: Suppose we could attribute beliefs and desires before the knowledge of the language. In this case, simultaneous attribution of propositional attitudes would still be necessary. >Propositional attitudes, >Thinking without language, >Desires, >Beliefs. But not particular propositional attitudes before language. >Language, >Understanding, >Language use. PeacockeVs "actual language relation": this supposedly needs no semantic vocabulary. >Reference, cf. >Primitive reference, >Semantics. Peacocke later: Gricean intentions cannot be used as evidence for radical interpretation, but that's not VsGrice. >Intentions/Grice, >P. Grice. Peacocke I 78f Propositional Attitudes/Attribution/Peacocke: Problem: instead of one set of propositional attitudes another can also be attributed. Solution/Peacocke: Relation of Closeness/Narrowness. E.g. someone who rearranges something on the table usually does not respond to the compass direction. - The concepts may then have different expressiveness. Important point: if it is a rotating table, the space-relative concepts can change while the table-relative ones remain constant. ((s) The concepts do not change, but their truth values.) More expressive: the space-relative concepts. - Problem: if they are used here, there may be an explanatory gap. >narrow concepts. I 83 We should not attribute any wider concepts if there more narrow ones are available. >Narrow/wide. |
Peacocke I Chr. R. Peacocke Sense and Content Oxford 1983 Peacocke II Christopher Peacocke "Truth Definitions and Actual Languges" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Avr I A. Avramides Meaning and Mind Boston 1989 |
| Compactness | Logic Texts | Read III 59 Compactness: the classic logical conclusion is compact. To understand this, we must acknowledge that the set of premises can be infinite. Classically, every logical truth (of which there are infinite numbers) is a conclusion from any statement. This can be multiplied, by double negation, the conjunction of itself with its double negation, and so on. III 60 The classical compactness does not mean that a conclusion cannot have an infinite number of premises, it can. But classically it is valid exactly when the conclusion follows from a finite subset of the premises. Compactness limits the expressiveness of a logic. Proof: is performed purely syntactically. In itself, the proof has no meaning. Its correctness is defined based on its form and structure. >Proof. III 61 The counterpart of proof is completeness: there should be a derivation. >Incompleteness/logic texts. III 61 The Omega rule (>Incompleteness/logic texts) is not accepted as a rule of orthodox, classical proof theory. How can I do this? According to classical representation, a rule is valid if the premises are true and the conclusion is false by no interpretation over any range of definition. How can the premises A(0),A(1) etc. was, but be false for each n,A(n)? III 61/62 The explanation lies in the limitation of the expressiveness. In non-compact logic, there may be a categorical set of formulas for arithmetic, but the proof methods require compactness. For expressiveness: >Richness, >Meta language, >Object language. Difference compact/non compact: classical logic is a 1st order logic. A categorical set of axioms for arithmetic must be a second order logic. ((s) quantifiers also for properties). >Quantifier, cf. >Schematic letters. For example, Napoleon had all the properties of a great general: "for every quality f, if for every person x, if x was a great general, then x had f, then Napoleon had f". In reality it is a little more subtle. For syntactically one cannot distinguish whether a formula is like the 1st or 2nd level above. >2nd order logic. |
Logic Texts Me I Albert Menne Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1988 HH II Hoyningen-Huene Formale Logik, Stuttgart 1998 Re III Stephen Read Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 Sal IV Wesley C. Salmon Logic, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973 - German: Logik Stuttgart 1983 Sai V R.M.Sainsbury Paradoxes, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 1995 - German: Paradoxien Stuttgart 2001 Re III St. Read Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 |
| Description Logic | AI Research | Norvig I 456 Description logic/AI research/Russell/Norvig: Description logics are notations that are designed to make it easier to describe definitions and properties of categories. The principal inference tasks for description logics are subsumption (checking if one category is a subset of another by comparing their definitions) and classification (checking whether an object belongs to a category). Norvig I 456 VsDescription logics/Norvig: either hard problems cannot be stated at all, or they require exponentially large descriptions! ((s) For a solution see >Conceptual space/Gärdenfors; >Semantic Web/Gärdenfors. (GärdenforsVsRussell, Stuart/GärdenforsVsNorvig). Norvig I 459 Circumspription: The idea is to specify particular predicates that are assumed to be “as false as possible”—that is, false for every object except those for which they are known to be true. For example, suppose we want to assert the default rule that birds fly. We would introduce a predicate, say Abnormal 1(x), and write Bird(x) ∧¬Abnormal 1(x) ⇒ Flies(x) . If we say that Abnormal 1 is to be circumscribed, a circumscriptive reasoner is entitled to assume ¬Abnormal 1(x) unless Abnormal 1(x) is known to be true. This allows the conclusion Flies(Tweety) to be drawn from the premise Bird(Tweety ), but the conclusion no longer holds if Abnormal 1(Tweety) is asserted. Circumscription can be viewed as an example of a model preference logic. In such logics, a sentence is entailed (with default status) if it is true in all preferred models of the knowledge base, as opposed to the requirement of truth in all models in classical logic. Norvig I 471 The development of description logics is the most recent stage in a long line of research aimed at finding useful subsets of first-order logic for which inference is computationally tractable. Hector Levesque and Ron Brachman (1987)(1) showed that certain logical constructs - notably, certain uses of disjunction and negation - were primarily responsible for the intractability of logical inference. Building on the KL-ONE system (Schmolze and Lipkis, 1983)(2), several researchers developed systems that incorporate theoretical complexity analysis, most notably KRYPTON (Brachman et al., 1983)(3) and Classic (Borgida et al., 1989)(4). The result has been a marked increase in the speed of inference and a much better understanding of the interaction between complexity and expressiveness in reasoning systems. Calvanese et al. (1999)(5) summarize the state of the art, and Baader et al. (2007)(6) present a comprehensive handbook of description logic. Against this trend, Doyle and Patil (1991)(7) have argued that restricting the expressiveness of a language either makes it impossible to solve certain problems or encourages the user to circumvent the language restrictions through nonlogical means. >Inference/AI research. 1. Levesque, H. J. and Brachman, R. J. (1987). Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 3(2), 78–93. 2. Schmolze, J. G. and Lipkis, T. A. (1983). Classification in the KL-ONE representation system. In IJCAI-83, pp. 330–332. 3. Brachman, R. J., Fikes, R. E., and Levesque, H. J. (1983). Krypton: A functional approach to knowledge representation. Computer, 16(10), 67–73. 4. Borgida, A., Brachman, R. J., McGuinness, D., and Alperin Resnick, L. (1989). CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects. SIGMOD Record, 18(2), 58-67. 5. Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., and Nardi, D. (1999). Unifying class-based representation formalisms. JAIR, 11, 199–240 6. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. (2007). The Description Logic Handbook (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press. 7. Doyle, J. and Patil, R. (1991). Two theses of knowledge representation: Language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services. AIJ, 48(3), 261–297. |
Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Equal Sign | Quine | IX 9 Equal Sign/Quine: "=" is a two-digit predicate. >Predicates/Quine. IX 10 Sign/Sign Set/Quine: each theory has introduced a basic vocabulary of primitive predicates, perhaps by definition. Mostly there are only finally many, then we do not need to add the equal sign "=". Because we can then define it with the help of the others. ((s) "primitive" does not mean "one-digit"). Equal Sign/Quine: suppose the only basic predicate of a theory is "φ". Then we can define "=" by the following explanation of "x = y": (1) ∀z[(φxz ‹› φyz) u (φzx ‹› φzy)]. For obviously "x= x" proves to be a simple example of a valid formula schema of quantifier logic. The same applies to all special cases of "(x = y u F) > Fy", as far as they are statements which contain no further predicate except "φ". This is seen in the following way: first, look at all results in which the statements made by "Fx" and "Fy" differ only in one place. The immediate context of this single occurrence must then be either "φxv" and "φyv" or "φvx" and "φvy", where "v" denotes any variable, (perhaps either x or y). IX 23 Individuals/Elemental Relation/Extensionality Axiom/Quine: Suggestion: "x ε y", if x is an individual, be true or false, depending on, b x = y or x unequal to y. Thus, the problem of applying the extensionality axiom to individuals disappears. "ε" of individuals has the property of "=". (Elemental relationship of individuals: equality! ("is element of", "is contained": becomes the equal sign before individuals). IX 26 Until then, the equal sign is only defined between class abstraction terms. Between variables we need further tools ...+.... X 88 Logical Truth/Structure/Definition/Quine: our definition of logical truth inevitably referred to the grammatical structure. Problem: this view is called into question when we introduce identity (identity predicate "=", equal sign). Identity/logical truth/Quine: the traceability of logical truth to grammatical structure is questioned when identity is introduced, because e.g. "x = x" or "x = y" may not be a logical truth, because not everything can be used. ((s) >Intension: because of it, not all theorems of identity are logical truths. Quine: it is about the fact that in one logical truth one predicate must be replaced by another, but the equal sign as a predicate cannot be replaced by another predicate. Identity/Logic/Quine: Truths of Identity Theory Example "x = x", "Ey((x = y)" or "~(x = y . ~(y = x))" ((s) symmetry of identity) are not suitable as logical truths according to our definitions of logical truth. >Logical Truth/Quine. Reason: they can be wrong if "=" is replaced by other predicates. Consequence: So should we not count identity to logic, but to mathematics? Together with ">" and "ε"? >Semantic Ascent. III 268 Two different names can stand for the same object, if the equal sign is inbetween, the equation is true. It is not claimed that the names are the same! III 271 Equal Sign/Quine: "=" is a common relative term. The equal sign is necessary because two variables can refer to the same or to different objects. From a logical point of view, the use of the equal sign between variables is fundamental, not that between singular terms. III 293 Equality Sign/expressiveness/stronger/weaker/Quine: we also gain expressiveness by making the equality sign obsolete ((s) when we introduce classes). Instead of "x = y" we say that x and y belong to exactly the same classes. I.e. (a)(x ε a. bik. y ε a) Identity/Quantities/Quine: the identity of classes can be explained in a way in reverse: "a = b" means that a and b have exactly the same elements. Then the equal sign is simply a convenient shortcut. Description/Equal Sign/Quine: if we have the equal sign, we can afford the luxury of introducing descriptions without having to calculate them as primitive basic concepts. Because with the equal sign we can eliminate a description from every sentence. >Descriptions/Quine. |
Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 |
| Exterior/interior | Quine | XII 90 Display/proof/expression/QuineVsCarnap: that a sentence can be expressed with logical, set-theoretical and observational terms, does not mean that it could prove itself with set-theoretical and logical means alone. - ((s) Means of expression are not admissible evidence (inside/outside circle)). >Circular resoning, >Proofs, >Provability; cf. >Expressiveness of a language. |
Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 |
| Impredicativeness | Dummett | II 77/8 Def impredicative/Dummett: an extension is impredicative if it allows the predicate "true" also for sentences of the extended language (by adding the predicate "true"). >Expressiveness, >Metalanguage, >Description levels, >Richness. |
Dummett I M. Dummett The Origins of the Analytical Philosophy, London 1988 German Edition: Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992 Dummett II Michael Dummett "What ist a Theory of Meaning?" (ii) In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Dummett III M. Dummett Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (a) Michael Dummett "Truth" in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59 (1959) pp.141-162 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (b) Michael Dummett "Frege’s Distiction between Sense and Reference", in: M. Dummett, Truth and Other Enigmas, London 1978, pp. 116-144 In Wahrheit, Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (c) Michael Dummett "What is a Theory of Meaning?" in: S. Guttenplan (ed.) Mind and Language, Oxford 1975, pp. 97-138 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (d) Michael Dummett "Bringing About the Past" in: Philosophical Review 73 (1964) pp.338-359 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (e) Michael Dummett "Can Analytical Philosophy be Systematic, and Ought it to be?" in: Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 17 (1977) S. 305-326 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 |
| Incompleteness | Logic Texts | Read III 61 Incompleteness Theorem/Gödel/Read: the compact inference produces too little: there are intuitively valid inferences that mark it as invalid. For example, the most famous example is the Omega theory: assuming a formula is true for any natural number. Then "for every n, A(n) is true". This is not a classical logical conclusion from them, because it does not follow from any finite subset of any set. The Omega rule would allow us to deduce from the premises A(0),A(1)... etc. "for every n A(n)." But this is a rule that could never be applied, it would require that a proof be an infinite object. Def Omega model: the natural numbers, as well as the zero, with the operations of the successor, addition, multiplication and exponentiation. The Omega rule is not accepted as a rule of orthodox classical proof theory. How can I do this? According to classical representation, a rule is valid if it is not possible to make the premises true and the conclusion false by any interpretation over any range of definition. How can the premises A(0),A(1) etc. was, but be false for each n,A(n)? III 61/62 The explanation lies in the limitation of the expressiveness. >Compactness/Logic texts, >2nd order logic. III 64 The Omega rule requires an extra premise: "and these are all numbers". This extra premise is arithmetically true, but the non-standard models show that, as far as logic is concerned, it has to be formulated explicitly (in 1st level terms, i.e. logical terms). III 65 Two ways to see that this answer is not appropriate as a defense of classical logic and its compactness. >Compactness/Logic texts. 1. the extra provision "and these are all numbers " cannot be expressed in terms of 1st level terms. 2. a proposal by Wittgenstein: a long conjunction for "each F is G": "this is G and that is G and that other is G... RussellVs: these two statements are not equivalent, because the long conjunction needs a final clause "and these are all F's". ReadVsRussell: Error: if a conjunction is exhaustive, then the two statements are equivalent. If not, the extra clause has no effect, because it is wrong. It does not do extra work. >Second order logic. |
Logic Texts Me I Albert Menne Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1988 HH II Hoyningen-Huene Formale Logik, Stuttgart 1998 Re III Stephen Read Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 Sal IV Wesley C. Salmon Logic, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973 - German: Logik Stuttgart 1983 Sai V R.M.Sainsbury Paradoxes, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 1995 - German: Paradoxien Stuttgart 2001 Re III St. Read Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 |
| Introduction | Introduction, philosophy: the introduction of objects establishes rules for the use of linguistic expressions for the objects, not a determination or description of these objects. See also definitions, use, language, expressiveness, localization. |
||
| Language | Brandom | I 238 Language/Brandom: linguistic skills consist of reliable disposition to respond differently to stimuli - more is not necessary. >RDRDs. I 648 You cannot describe a language coherently in which expressions are used demonstratively, but not pronominally. (vice versa it is possible). >Pronouns. I 519 Language/Infinite/Brandom: if there are correct and incorrect uses of phrases that are formed for the first time, there must be some kind of extrapolation. Substitution: if two sentences are substitutional variants, then they are applications of the same function. >Substitution. I 545 Language/Richness/Expressiveness/Brandom: if the language is expressively rich, there must be no asymetrical SMSICs for substitutable expressions (singular terms). >SMSICs, >Singular terms. This would mean that (Vs): for every sentential frame Pa, whenever the interence from Pt to Pt" is correct, but not vice versa, there was a sentence frame P"a in a way that the inference from P"t" to P"t was correct, but not vice versa! It would be impossible to codify inferences in such a language. I 815 Language/Brandom: There are not so many words - the language would be poor if they all had the same meaning in the mouths of different speakers. - Speakers who do not accept the same definition cannot assign every assertion de dicto - E.g. "that scoundrel". >de dicto, >de re. |
Bra I R. Brandom Making it exlicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Cambridge/MA 1994 German Edition: Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000 Bra II R. Brandom Articulating reasons. An Introduction to Inferentialism, Cambridge/MA 2001 German Edition: Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001 |
| Learning Theory | Norvig | Norvig I 713 Theory of Learning/Norvig/Russell: [main problem:] how can we be sure that our learning algorithm has produced a hypothesis that will predict the correct value for previously unseen inputs? In formal terms, how do we know that the hypothesis h is close to the target function f if we don’t know what f is? These questions have been pondered for several centuries. In more recent decades, other questions have emerged: how many examples do we need to get a good h? What hypothesis space should we use? If the hypothesis space is very complex, can we even find the best h, or do we have to settle for a local maximum in the Norvig I 714 space of hypotheses? How complex should h be? How do we avoid overfitting? >Decision tree/Norvig, >Complexity/Norvig, >Learning/AI Research. Computational learning theory: (…) lies at the intersection of AI, statistics, and theoretical computer science. The underlying principle is that any hypothesis that is seriously wrong will almost certainly be “found out” with high probability after a small number of examples, because it will make an incorrect prediction. Thus, any hypothesis that is consistent with a sufficiently large set of training examples is unlikely to be seriously wrong: that is, it must be probably approximately correct. PAC: Any learning algorithm that returns hypotheses that are probably approximately correct is called a PAC learning algorithm; we can use this approach to provide bounds on the performance of various learning algorithms. Stationarity assumption: future examples are going to be drawn from the same fixed distribution P(E)=P(X, Y ) as past examples. Correctness: A hypothesis h is called approximately correct if error (h) ≤ , where is a small constant. We will show that we can find an N such that, after seeing N examples, with high probability, all consistent hypotheses will be approximately correct. >Learning/AI Research, >Artificial Neural Networks. Norvig I 757 Computational learning theory analyzes the sample complexity and computational complexity of inductive learning. There is a tradeoff between the expressiveness of the hypothesis language and the ease of learning. Linear regression is a widely used model. The optimal parameters of a linear regression model can be found by gradient descent search, or computed exactly. A linear classifier with a hard threshold - also known as a perceptron - can be trained by a simple weight update rule to fit data that are linearly separable. In other cases, the rule fails to converge. Norvig I 759 History: The theory of PAC-learning was inaugurated by Leslie Valiant (1984)(1). His work stressed the importance of computational and sample complexity. With Michael Kearns (1990)(2), Valiant showed that several concept classes cannot be PAC-learned tractably, even though sufficient information is available in the examples. Some positive results were obtained for classes such as decision lists (Rivest, 1987)(3). An independent tradition of sample-complexity analysis has existed in statistics, beginning with the work on uniform convergence theory (Vapnik and Chervonenkis, 1971)(4). The so-called VC dimension provides a measure roughly analogous to, but more general than, the ln |H| measure obtained from PAC analysis. The VC dimension can be applied to continuous function classes, to which standard PAC analysis does not apply. PAC-learning theory and C theory were first connected by the “four Germans” (none of whom actually is German): Blumer, Ehrenfeucht, Haussler, and Warmuth (1989)(5). Linear regression with squared error loss goes back to Legendre (1805)(6) and Gauss (1809)(7), who were both working on predicting orbits around the sun. The modern use of multivariate regression for machine learning is covered in texts such as Bishop (2007)(8). Ng 2004)(9) analyzed the differences between L1 and L2 regularization. 1. Valiant, L. (1984). A theory of the learnable. CACM, 27, 1134-1142. 2. Kearns, M. (1990). The Computational Complexity of Machine Learning. MIT Press. 3. Rivest, R. (1987). Learning decision lists. Machine Learning, 2(3), 229-246. 4. Vapnik, V. N. and Chervonenkis, A. Y. (1971). On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities. Theory of Probability and Its Applications, 16, 264-280. 5. Blumer, A., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., andWarmuth, M. (1989). Learnability and the Vapnik- Chervonenkis dimension. JACM, 36(4), 929–965. 6. Legendre, A. M. (1805). Nouvelles méthodes pour la détermination des orbites des comètes. 7. Gauss, C. F. (1809). Theoria Motus Corporum Coelestium in Sectionibus Conicis Solem Ambientium. Sumtibus F. Perthes et I. H. Besser, Hamburg. |
Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Logic | Wittgenstein | Hintikka I 138 Frege/logic/Hintikka: his logic is considered as the theory of complex sentences - Wittgenstein in contrast: easiest parts of the world - eliminate logical constants - They do not represent. >Logical constants, >Representation. I 205 Logic/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: no other author than Wittgenstein has ever had the thought, in the logic it had ultimately no more explanation than what is given to us in experience through the simple objects - all phenomenology is just logic. - HusserlVs - Husserl: possibilities are motivated by background beliefs. --- II 160 Logic/WittgensteinVsFrege: 1. It is rather arbitrary, what we call a sentence - therefore logic means something else in my opinion than in Frege's. 2. VsFrege: All words are equally important - Frege: thesis: "Word", "sentence", "world" are more important. >Sentences, >Words, >World, >Symbols. II 238 Logic/arbitrary/Wittgenstein: the rules of logic are insofar arbitrary that they can be eliminated for greater expressiveness - E.g. sentence of the excluded third (SaD) is invalid - at least "contradiction" is used in different meanings - as well as double negation -. Some authors: "the application is different." WittgensteinVs: one cannot talk independently of a sign from its use. - ((S) Then it is another sign - against see below. >Signs, >Use. II 328 The sentence of the excluded third is universal. II 327 Logic/Wittgenstein: it is not a science, but a calculus - in it you can make inventions, but no discoveries. II 333 Logic/WittgensteinVsCarnap: one cannot construct a logic for all cases - because one cannot abstract both applications from the application. --- VI 85 Logic/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/Schulte: not we express with the signs what we want - but in the logic the nature of the nature-necessary sign states itself - (6,124). VI 89 Logic/border/Wittgenstein/Schulte: the logic is not given a limit through the use of the language, of course - it is, so to speak, the common framework of "my" and "your" language. VI 118 Logic/Wittgenstein: say/show: logic says nothing, it shows something about necessity - grammatical sentences (about the language) thus fall out of the language game -> training: no speakable rules but blind following. TrainingVsExplanation, instead: Description - (> tell/show: Explanation/Wittgenstein). --- IV 101 Logic/Tractatus: (6.1264) each sentence of logic is a, in characters expressed, modus ponens - (And this cannot be expressed by one sentence). - (> Show/tell: > Ostension/Wittgenstein). |
W II L. Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989 W III L. Wittgenstein The Blue and Brown Books (BB), Oxford 1958 German Edition: Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984 W IV L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921. German Edition: Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960 Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Metalanguage | Metalanguage: metalanguage is the language in which linguistic forms, the meaning of expressions and sentences, the use of language, as well as the admissibility of formations, and the truth of statements are discussed. The language you refer to is called object language. A statement about the form, correctness, or truth of another statement thus includes both, i.e. object language and meta language. See also richness, truth-predicate, expressiveness, paradoxes, mention, use, quasi-reference, quotation, hierarchy, fixed points. |
||
| Modal Logic | Stalnaker | I 144 Quantified Modal Logic/Stalnaker: quantified modal logic arises not simply from the joining of modal predicate logic and extensional quantifier theory. >Quantifier theory, >Quantifiers, >Quantification. Problem: the increase in expressiveness allows Leibniz’s Law and the existential generalization appear doubtful. >Existential generalization. Problems: first, there is a problem in the status of sentences and second there is a problem in the relation between domains of individuals. >Domains, >Sentences. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| S 4 / S 5 | S 4 / S 5, logic, philosophy: S 4 and S 5 are modal logical systems that differ in terms of what is expressible in them. The increase in expressiveness is achieved by adding axioms. S 5 results from S 4 by the added axiom Mp > NMp. "What is possible is necessarily possible". See also axioms, axiom systems, modal logic, modalities, stronger/weaker. |
||
| Semantic Closure | Davidson | Glüer II 23 Def Semantic Closure/Tarski: is a language (object language), if it contains a T-predicate. Def essentially rich/Tarski: is a language that does not contain variables of a higher logical type. Def semantically closed/Tarski/Glüer: Languages in which one can call one's own statements "true" (i.e. self-referential). Such languages enable the "liar paradox". A consistent definition of truth is excluded for such languages. >Paradoxes. It must not be possible to interpret the metalanguage in the object language, otherwise it would be possible to "retranslate" the definition of the W predicate formulated in the metalanguage. this leads to antinomies. The metalanguage must be Def "essentially richer"/Tarski/Glüer: to be more rich than the object language: it must contain variables of higher logical type. (sic). >Object language, >Metalanguage, >Richness, >Expressiveness. |
Davidson I D. Davidson Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (a) Donald Davidson "Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (b) Donald Davidson "What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (c) Donald Davidson "Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (d) Donald Davidson "Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (e) Donald Davidson "The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson II Donald Davidson "Reply to Foster" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Davidson III D. Davidson Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990 Davidson IV D. Davidson Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984 German Edition: Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990 Davidson V Donald Davidson "Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 D II K. Glüer D. Davidson Zur Einführung Hamburg 1993 |
| Substitution | Quine | VII (b) 29 Substitutability/substitution/QuineVsLeibniz: the strength of this requirement varies with the richness of the language - we need both, single- and multi-digit predicates, truth functions (not, and, or, etc.), classes, classes of classes, descriptions, singular terms. >Classes, >Descriptions, >Truth functions, >Predicates, >Richness, >Expressiveness, >Singular terms. This language is then extensional: any two predicates that match extensionally (are true for the same object) are substitutable salva veritate - but that does not secure cognitive synonymy. >Extensionality, >Extension. --- VII (c) 56 Substitutability/Quine: question salvo quo? Something is always changed. --- IX 9 Replace/substitution/Quine: if in a statement that has been substituted for "Fx" free variables other than "x" occurr, then they may not be such that fall under the scope of quantifiers that occur in the scheme in which the substitution was made. |
Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 |
| Supervised Learning | AI Research | Norvig I 694 Supervised Learning/AI Research/Norvig/Russell: In unsupervised learning the agent learns patterns in the input even though no explicit feedback is supplied. The most common unsupervised learning task is clustering: detecting Norvig I 695 potentially useful clusters of input examples. Def Supervised learning: In supervised learning the agent observes some example input–output pairs and learns a function that maps from input to output. In semi-supervised learning we are given a few labeled examples and must make what we can of a large collection of unlabeled examples. Even the labels themselves may not be the oracular truths that we hope for. Imagine that you are trying to build a system to guess a person’s age from a photo. You gather some labeled examples by snapping pictures of people and asking their age. That’s supervised learning. But in reality some of the people lied about their age. It’s not just that there is random noise in the data; rather the inaccuracies are systematic, and to uncover them is an unsupervised learning problem involving images, self-reported ages, and true (unknown) ages. Thus, both noise and lack of labels create a continuum between supervised and unsupervised learning. The task of supervised learning is this: Given a training set of N example input–output pairs (x1, y1), (x2, y2), . . . (xN, yN) , where each yj was generated by an unknown function y = f(x), discover a function h that approximates the true function f. Norvig I 696 Classification: When the output y is one of a finite set of values (such as sunny, cloudy or rainy), the learning problem is called classification, and is called Boolean or binary classification if there are only two values. Regression: When y is a number (such as tomorrow’s temperature), the learning problem is called regression. Hypotheses: In general, there is a tradeoff between complex hypotheses that fit the training data well and simpler hypotheses that may generalize better. >Representation/Norvig, >Knowledge/AI Research, >Learning/AI Research. Norvig I 697 Realization: We say that a learning problem is realizable if the hypothesis space contains the true function. Unfortunately, we cannot always tell whether a given learning problem is realizable, because the true function is not known. There is a tradeoff between the expressiveness of a hypothesis space and the complexity of finding a good hypothesis within that space. Norvig I 759 History: Cross-validation was first introduced by Larson (1931)(1), and in a form close to what we show by Stone (1974)(2) and Golub et al. (1979)(3). The regularization procedure is due to Tikhonov (1963)(4). Guyon and Elisseeff (2003)(5) introduce a journal issue devoted to the problem of feature selection. Banko and Brill (2001)(6) and Halevy et al. (2009)(7) discuss the advantages of using large amounts of data. It was Robert Mercer, a speech researcher who said in 1985 “There is no data like more data.” (Lyman and Varian, 2003)(8)o estimate that about 5 exabytes (5 × 1018 bytes) of data was produced in 2002, and that the rate of production is doubling every 3 years. Theoretical analysis of learning algorithms began with the work of Gold (1967)(9) on identification in the limit. This approach was motivated in part by models of scientific discovery from the philosophy of science (Popper, 1962)(10), but has been applied mainly to the problem of learning grammars from example sentences (Osherson et al., 1986)(11). 1. Larson, S. C. (1931). The shrinkage of the coefficient of multiple correlation. J. Educational Psychology, 22, 45–-55. 2. Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statostical predictions. J. Royal Statistical Society, 36 (111-133). 3. Golub, G., Heath, M., and Wahba, G. (1979). Generalized cross-validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter. Technometrics, 21 (2). 4. Tikhonov, A. N. (1963). Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method. Soviet Math. Dokl., 5, 1035-1038. 5. Guyon, I. and Elisseeff, A. (2003). An introduction to variable and feature selection. JMLR, pp. 1157- 1182. 6. Banko, M. and Brill, E. (2001). Scaling to very very large corpora for natural language disambiguation. In ACL-01, pp. 26-33. 7. Halevy, A., Norvig, P., and Pereira, F. (2009). The unreasonable effectiveness of data. IEEE Intelligent Systems, March/April, 8-12. 8. Lyman, P. and Varian, H. R. (2003). How much information? www.sims.berkeley. edu/how-much-info-2003. 9. Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447-474. 10. Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Basic Books. 11. Osherson, D. N., Stob, M., and Weinstein, S. (1986). Systems That Learn: An Introduction to Learning Theory for Cognitive and Computer Scientists. MIT Press. |
Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Truth | Davidson | I (c) 56 Immanence Theory of Truth/Davidson: The sentence of another could be true for him, even though, when I translate it correctly, it makes no sense for me. The truth predicate defined in the meta-language can be translated back into the object language and the state before the elimination can be restored of the "true". >Truth predicate, >Object language, >Metalanguage. Object language and meta-language should contain the predicate "true". >Expressiveness, >Richness, >Truth theory. Davidson, however, can avoid the dilemma by not defining a definition at all. He calls this a truth definition in the style of Tarski in the following called "truth theory". DavidsonVsTarski: empirical instead of formal - Empiricism excludes false additions of law (Goodman) - Convention: truth is not sufficiently empirical. >Convention T. The truth of an utterance depends only on two things: of what the words, as they were used, mean, and of the world. Glüer II 131 VsTranscendentalism: one cannot separate language competence and influence on the world. "Negative Transcendentalism". Rorty VI 51 Davidson/Truth: We collect information and patterns about whether actors agree to sentences or not. And this, without knowing the meaning of the sentences of actor. But after a while we do the step from the "nonpropositional to the propositional". A theory of truth is at the same time automatically a theory of meaning and rationality. Every intensional concept is intertwined with every other intensional concept. Glüer II 28 Interpretation Theory/Glüer: must not assume that their theorems were derived with the help of a translation (circle) - therefore DavidsonVsTarski: presupposing truth to explain meaning. >Interpretation theory. Horwich I 443 Truth/Davidson/Rorty: should be identified with nothing. - There is no correspondence, no truth-making. DavidsonVsPragmatism: Truth is not equal to assertion. Richard Rorty (1986), "Pragmatism, Davidson and Truth" in E. Lepore (Ed.) Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson, Oxford, pp. 333-55. Reprinted in: Paul Horwich (Ed.) Theories of truth, Dartmouth, England USA 1994 Rorty VI 189 Truth/Norms/Davidson: (according to Brandom): the pursuit of truth cannot go beyond our own practices (also Sellars). |
Davidson I D. Davidson Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (a) Donald Davidson "Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (b) Donald Davidson "What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (c) Donald Davidson "Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (d) Donald Davidson "Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (e) Donald Davidson "The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson II Donald Davidson "Reply to Foster" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Davidson III D. Davidson Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990 Davidson IV D. Davidson Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984 German Edition: Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990 Davidson V Donald Davidson "Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 D II K. Glüer D. Davidson Zur Einführung Hamburg 1993 Rorty I Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979 German Edition: Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997 Rorty II Richard Rorty Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000 Rorty II (b) Richard Rorty "Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (c) Richard Rorty Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (d) Richard Rorty Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (e) Richard Rorty Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (f) Richard Rorty "Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (g) Richard Rorty "Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty III Richard Rorty Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989 German Edition: Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992 Rorty IV (a) Richard Rorty "is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (b) Richard Rorty "Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (c) Richard Rorty "Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (d) Richard Rorty "Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty V (a) R. Rorty "Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998 Rorty V (b) Richard Rorty "Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty V (c) Richard Rorty The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992) In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 Horwich I P. Horwich (Ed.) Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994 |
| Truth Predicate | Davidson | Rorty VI 20 "True"/Davidson: "true" is not a name of a relationship between language statements and the world. In other words: the expression "true" should neither be analyzed nor defined. There is no thing that makes sentences and theories true. >Truthmakers. "True" is not synonymous with anything at all. Neither with "justified according to our knowledge", nor with "justified by the circumstances in the world". --- Glüer II 27 Truth-Predicate/Tarski: Problem: DavidsonVsTarski: object language and meta language should contain the predicate true. >Expressiveness, >Object language, >Metalanguage, >Truth theory. The truth predicate defined in the metalanguage can be translated back into the object language. Solution/Davidson: does not set up a truth definition at all. Instead: Truth Theory/Davidson: Reinterpretation of the convention truth as a criterion of appropriateness for truth-theories of natural languages. Glüer II 28 Truth-Predicate/Tarski: any predicate that delivers correct translations is a truth-predicate. - This presupposes meaning in order to explicate truth. Glüer II Truth-predicate/TarskiVsDavidson: provides a structural description of a language whose translation is known. - The truth-predicate does not contribute to the truth theory. - It is not interpreted in Tarski. - ((s) we do not know what truth is - Truth-Predicate/DavidsonVsTarski: is interpreted a priori.) - ((s) we already know what truth is.) - Definition interpreted/(s): know what a word means. Rorty IV 22 True/Davidson/Rorty: does not correspond to any relationship between linguistic expressions and the world. - No correspondence. Cf. >Correspondence theory. |
Davidson I D. Davidson Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (a) Donald Davidson "Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (b) Donald Davidson "What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (c) Donald Davidson "Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (d) Donald Davidson "Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (e) Donald Davidson "The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson II Donald Davidson "Reply to Foster" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Davidson III D. Davidson Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990 Davidson IV D. Davidson Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984 German Edition: Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990 Davidson V Donald Davidson "Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 Rorty I Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979 German Edition: Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997 Rorty II Richard Rorty Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000 Rorty II (b) Richard Rorty "Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (c) Richard Rorty Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (d) Richard Rorty Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (e) Richard Rorty Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (f) Richard Rorty "Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (g) Richard Rorty "Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty III Richard Rorty Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989 German Edition: Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992 Rorty IV (a) Richard Rorty "is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (b) Richard Rorty "Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (c) Richard Rorty "Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (d) Richard Rorty "Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty V (a) R. Rorty "Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998 Rorty V (b) Richard Rorty "Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty V (c) Richard Rorty The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992) In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 D II K. Glüer D. Davidson Zur Einführung Hamburg 1993 |
| Truth Values | Quine | VII (d) 71 Propositional Calculus/indistinguishability/theoretical terms/Quine: "p", "q" etc. refer to propositional concepts, whatever they may be. But we know that propositional concepts like truth values are not distinguishable in terms of the calculus, the expressiveness of the calculus is limited. VII (f) 112 Truth Values/Quine: can be allowed as abstract entities. VII 115 Truth Value/Quine: is not an abstract entity to which we appeal with assertions. VII (h) 154 Range/Russell: a change in the range of a description is neutral to the truth value of any sentence. Quine: but only if the description designates something. Lauener XI 38 Quantification/Lauener/(s): truth values can only be attributed to quantified sentences. Quine I 226 Vagueness/Quine: leaves the truth values untouched. Therefore it can be useful. >Vagueness. I 263ff Truth Value/intension/extension/Quine: in extensional contexts a singular term may be replaced by a singular term with the same name without changing the truth value of the sentence. This is not possible in opaque (intensional) contexts. >Intensions, >Extensions, >Opacity. I 266 Opaque Contexts/Truth Value/Frege: in a construction with a propositional attitude, a sentence or term may not denote truth values, a class or an individual, but functions as the "name of a thought" or the name of a property or an "individual concept". ((s) In non-intensional contexts, a sentence in Frege's work designates a truth value, "The True," or "The False". > "Great Fact", >"Slingshot Argument"). II 192 From today's point of view, quantifier logic is nothing more than a further development of the logic of truth functions. The truth value of a truth function can be calculated on the basis of the truth values of the arguments. Why then does quantifier logic not become decidable by truth tables? This validity criterion would be too strict because the quantified sub-expressions are not always independent of each other. Some sub-expressions may turn out to be untrue, but are unworthy of a closer look at an assignment to truth values. See also >Truth tables. III 281 Truth value/Existence/Nonexistence/Ontology/Logic/Quine: which truth values have sentences like "Zerberus barking"? (See also >Unicorn example). The answer "wrong" would be premature. III 282 Problem: for all sentences that would be wrong, there would be a negation that would be true! Our derivation methods do not prove anything in case the object does not exist. What would have to be proved is based on an unfulfilled condition. Truth value gap/Quine: comes from everyday language, in logic we have to fill it. And be it arbitrary. Every sentence should have a truth value (true or false). >Everyday language. That was the reason for the convenient extension of the term conditional in § 3,m which generally allowed a truth value for the whole conditional. We now need a similar extension for singular terms, which do not describe anything. But this cannot be achieved by an all-encompassing decision. But this can be done for simple sentences, from which we derive rules for compound sentences. Def simple predicate: is a predicate if it does not explicitly have the form of a quantification, negation, conjunction, alternation etc. of shorter components. If a simple predicate is applied to a singular term that does not denote anything, the sentence in question is to be considered false. Then e.g. "Zerberus barks" is wrong, because it represents an application of the predicate "[1] barks" to "Zerberus". V 112 Truth values/Language learning/Quine: truth values correspond to a more advanced level of learning. Using different theories for different subject areas V 113 we finally learn (if at all) which judgement to make in the indeterminate cases of conjunction or alternation in the middle of the table. Logic/Learn languages/Quine: bivalent logic is a theoretical product which, like all theory, is only learned indirectly. How, we can only speculate about that. VI 128 Singular terms/truth value/sense/divalued logic/unicorn/Quine: in the case of unrelated singular terms or failed descriptions, we may not know the truth value. It is not profitable to describe such sentences as meaningless, since the existence of the object could turn out (e.g. Pluto). It is alright to leave the truth value open, but not the meaning of a sentence! VI 129 Singular terms/truth value/sense/divalued logic/unicorn/Quine: in the case of unrelated singular terms or failed descriptions, we may not know the truth value. It is not profitable to describe such sentences as meaningless, since the existence of the object could turn out (e.g. Pluto). It is alright to leave the truth value open, but not the meaning of a sentence! VI 131 Antirealism/Sentence of the excluded Middle/Dummett/Quine: Dummett turns against the sentence of the excluded middle with epistemological arguments. (Also Brouwer): No sentence is true or false, as long as no procedure for the determination of the truth value is known. |
Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 Q XI H. Lauener Willard Van Orman Quine München 1982 |
| Validity | Stalnaker | I 148 Validity/expressiveness/modal/quantification/Stalnaker: the validity of the generalization schema is unlike the identity scheme. >Generality, >Generalization. It depends on limitations of the expressiveness of the extensional theory. If the language is richer, some new instances will be no theorems. >Extensions, >Extensionality, >Expressivivity, >Expressibility, >Richness. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carnap, R. | Goodman Vs Carnap, R. | II 67 GoodmanVsCarnap/Reduction Sentences: the whole thing is pretty absurd. In my opinion, philosophy has the task to explicate, not to describe science (and the everyday language). The explication shall refer to pre-systematic use of the expressions of consideration, but does not need to comply with the order. It s all about economy and standardization. Schurz I 219 Grue/Bleen/Goodman/Schurz: logical form: (B: observes G*: grue) G*: ((Bxt0 > Gx) u (~Bxt0 > Rx)). Sa: Emerald. Sample: {a:1 ‹ i ‹ n} Then the assertions Sai u Bat0 u Gai and Sai u Bat0 u G*ai are equivalent b< definition. If we apply the inductive generalization conclusion both for "green" and for "grue", our sample results in the two universal hypotheses H: = "All emeralds are green" and H*: = "All emeralds are grue". Problem: H and H* imply for all emeralds not observed before t0 conflicting forecasts (green vs red). Schurz: the following relationship exists to subjective inductive exchangeability assumptions: for regular probability functions the exchangeability assumption cannot be valid at the same time for the predicate (Gx) and its pathological counterpart (G*). Question: according to which criteria should we decide which predicates we consider as exchangeable or inductively projectable? Many criteria were proposed and proved to be unsuitable. Carnap: (1947.146 1976, 211): Thesis: only qualitative predicates are inducible (projectable) "grue" is a Def "Positional" Predicate/Carnap, that is a predicate that refers to the time t0 in its definition. E.g. grue. Def Qualitative Predicate/Carnap: has no definitional reference to individual constants. GoodmanVsCarnap: (Goodman 1955/75, 105): Problem of language dependence (sic: dependence): through reciprocal re-definition it is possible to move from our own language (with "green" and "red") to a language which is equivalent in its expressiveness and in which "grue" and "bleen"(G * x * x R,) act as basic concepts (basic predicates): Re-Definition/Language Dependence/Logical Form: Language L (Gx, Rx primitive) language L* (G*x, R*x primitive) Definitions in L Definitions in L* G*x: ‹› ((Bxt0 > Gx) u (~Bxt0 › Rx)) Gx: ‹› ((Bxt0 › G*x) u (~Bxt0 › R*x)) R*x: ‹› ((Bxt0 › Rx) u (~Bxt0 › Gx)) Rx: ‹› ((Bxt0 > R*x) u (~Bxt0 › G*x)). Solution/Schurz: it is possible to distinguish between qualitative and positional predicates in terms of ostensive learnability independent of the language! I 220 GoodmanVsInduction/Schurz: this does not answer why induction should be based on qualitative and not on positional predicates. Induction consists in extending pattern that were so far observed as consistent into the future. To be able to formulate useful induction rules we need to know what remained constant! And that depends on the qualitative features. Positional features are pseudo-features. Important argument: the fact that individuals are "constantly" "grue" means that they change their color from green to red at t0 . In this case, we have carried out "anti-induction" and not induction. That is the reason why we (with Carnap) have basic predicates for qualitative and not positional features for induction rules. |
G IV N. Goodman Catherine Z. Elgin Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, Indianapolis 1988 German Edition: Revisionen Frankfurt 1989 Goodman I N. Goodman Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis/Cambridge 1978 German Edition: Weisen der Welterzeugung Frankfurt 1984 Goodman II N. Goodman Fact, Fiction and Forecast, New York 1982 German Edition: Tatsache Fiktion Voraussage Frankfurt 1988 Goodman III N. Goodman Languages of Art. An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis 1976 German Edition: Sprachen der Kunst Frankfurt 1997 Schu I G. Schurz Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie Darmstadt 2006 |
| Description Theory | Verschiedene Vs Description Theory | Stalnaker I 211 Def Causal Descriptivism/Terminology/Stalnaker: a description theory of names that incorporates the causal chain into the description that is the content of the name. Thus it also incorporates a stiffening operator that ensures that the identifiers for which the names are an abbreviation (>Russell) have wide range. Counter Position/VsDescriptivism/VsDescription Theory: causal theory of the reference. VsCausal Descriptivism/Stalnaker: moves the meta semantic Black Peter from the names to the common terms. We need to know how their reference is established. Jackson: For example, suppose we have a language in which the reference definition of names is excluded. It would still have the expressiveness "to a certain extent to say how things are". Stalnaker: if there was such a thing, it would make sense to say that the reference definition is part of the descriptive content of names. Possible Languages/Stalnaker: we can make up any semantics we want. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Feynman, R. | Platonism Vs Feynman, R. | Field III 105 Is the Peano arithmetic weaker than arithmetic in the context of 1st stage set theory. Nevertheless, Peano is expressive enough for all normal arithmetic consequences. (more/less). Field: Thesis: I would expect that this also applies to N0. It is more than expressive enough for all normal developments of the normal gravitational theory. PlatonismVsField: may object that nominalism is in trouble despite the expressiveness: because N0 is weaker in nominalistic consequences than the Platonic P0. Then it does not have all nominalistic consequences we should want. Because we should wish all nominalistic consequences of P0! Even the "recherché" consequences that include the Gödel sentence. FieldVsVs: there is something to it. But it seems to me that this cannot be used to support P0 itself. Because even P0 has a Gödel sentence (if we assume ZF). And if we add this sentence to P0, we will get "recherché" consequences that we do not get from P0 alone. |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | Stroud Vs Quine, W.V.O. | I 183 Internal/external/Carnap/StroudVsQuine: in Carnap's distinction there must be something else. The fact that it can be answered as an internal question but not as an (identical) external one shows that the two must not be confused. Language/Carnap/Stroud: therefore Carnap distinguishes different "languages" or "systems". These answer only internal questions. Expressiveness: that a "philosophical" (external) question is then meaningless is not only due to the terminology. I 184 The terminology is always meaningful. For example, within mathematics, "There are numbers" makes sense. I 223 Knowledge/Skepticism/Quine: if all knowledge is put to the test at the same time, no part of it can be invoked. ((s) > Example "Everything he said is true"). Empiricism/knowledge/solution/Quine: this is the reason why knowledge must be justified on the basis of sensory experience. Psychology/knowledge/explanation/justification/Quine: a surrender of epistemology to psychology leads to circularity. ((s) Because psychology itself goes beyond the mere detection of stimuli). StroudVsQuine/StroudVsNaturalised Epistemology: is also a surrender of epistemology to psychology. And thus just as circulatory! Epistemology/Stroud: can it be that the traditional epistemology has been refuted, but not Quine's naturalized epistemology itself? Is the solution the relation between the two? Quine: sometimes suggests that the two points of view (NaturalizedVsTraditional Epistemology) differ: the "doctrinal" question should be put aside as false hope. Consciousness/knowledge/tradition/knowledge theory/justification/Stroud: the traditional epistemology insists on the isolation of certain objects of consciousness in order to identify undoubted information. Consciousness/QuineVsTradition: we can bypass the question of consciousness and simply try to explain, I 224 how our rich output arises from the events that occur on our sensory surface (nerve endings). N.B.: this can be approached scientifically. Then one can distinguish two types of events in the observable physical world, and that is the scientific goal. StroudVsQuine: it looks like Quine just changed the subject. Skepticism then still threatens. And Quine does not want that. "Liberated epistemology" (roots of reference, 3): is not the same as empirical psychology, it is rather an "enlightened persistence" (enlightened) of the traditional epistemic problem. Empiricism/knowledge/justification/reason/circle/Quine: (see above) Tradition: our knowledge cannot be empirically justified, otherwise it is circular. QuineVsTradition: this fear of circularity is unnecessary logical shyness. "Enlightenment/"liberated" epistemology/Quine: the insight into the fact that skepticism arises from science itself. And to fight it, we are entitled to bring in scientific knowledge. QuineVsTradition: did not recognize the strength of its position at all. I 225 Knowledge/Skepticism/QuineVsTradition: Traditional epistemology has not recognized that the challenge of knowledge originated from knowledge itself. Thesis: the doubts about its reliability have always been scientific doubts. Consciousness/Quine: the confusion was based on the concentration on consciousness. Introspection/Tradition: thought that facts about our "lean" input would be brought to light through introspection. QuineVsIntrospection: the reasons for finding the input lean come from science. I 227 Deception/Skepticism/QuineVsTradition: the concept of illusion itself is based on science, because the quality of deception simply consists in deviating from external scientific reality. (Quine, Roots of reference, RR 3) Illusions exist only relative to a previously accepted assumption of real bodies. Given/QuineVsSellars/Stroud: this may be the reason to assume a non-binding given. (SellarsVsQuine). QuineVsDescartes/Stroud: N.B.: then it might seem impossible to invoke the possibility of deception because some knowledge of external reality is necessary to understand the concept of illusion! Stroud: we have dealt with arguments of this form before (see above >Distortion of meaning). Violation of the necessary conditions for the use of certain terms. Quine/Stroud: it could now be answered analogously to StroudVsAustin, MooreVsAustin, but Quine does not make these errors. Language/Skepticism/Quine/Stroud: his approach to language (QuineVsAnalyticity, QuineVsSynonymy) leaves him no possibility to invoke what lies within the meaning of a particular term. StroudVsQuine: but if he thinks that the scientific origins do not lead to skepticism, why does he think that because the "skeptical doubts are scientific doubts" I 228 the epistemologist is "clearly" entitled to use empirical science? The question is made even more difficult by Quine's explicit denial that: Skepticism/Quine: I'm not saying he leaves the question unanswered, he is right to use science to reject science. I am simply saying that skeptical doubts are scientific doubts. TraditionVsQuine/Stroud: this is important for the defense of the traditional epistemologist: if it is not a logical mistake to refute doubts from science itself, so that in the end there is certainty, then what is the crucial logical point that he has missed? StroudVsQuine: if his "only point" is that skeptical doubts are scientific doubts, then epistemology becomes part of science. SkepticismVsQuine/Stroud: but the skeptic could answer with a "reductio ad absurdum", and then epistemology would no longer be part of science: "Reductio ad absurdum"/SkepticismVsQuine/Stroud: either a) Science is true and gives us knowledge, or b) It is not true and gives us no knowledge. Nothing we believe about the outer world is knowledge. I 230 Moore/Stroud: Moore should not be slandered either. According to Kant and Carnap, what he says is completely legitimate. Skepticism/StroudVsQuine: N.B.: the results of an independent scientific study would be in the same boat as e.g. Moore's hands. They would be "scientific" versions of Moore's argument with the common sense. Philosophy/Science/Quine: both merge continuously. Stroud: Descartes and other traditional philosophers could agree with that. StroudVsQuine: Problem: then maybe we have no scientific knowledge at all. We have no more reason to believe in it than we do not believe in it. No scientific investigation could provide clarity here. I 231 Nor would any challenge be conceivable "from the inside". So skepticism would follow. I 233 Skepticism/StroudVsQuine: but whether it is correct or not is not something that will be decided by future experience or experiments! If the epistemological question is correctly asked - as Quine asks it - then we already know how future experience will be! We will always be confronted with the question of the surplus of our rich output over lean input. Certainly, if we are confronted today with an experience that undermines our belief, skepticism will be justified today. But: N.B.: the same was already justified in 1630! I 234 Naturalism/StroudVsQuine: will not be enough if skepticism argues with the reductio ad absurdum. We just have to rebuild the ship on the high seas. The traditional epistemologist can saw (identify!) the piece out of the ship that represents the lean input. I 240 Knowledge/StroudVsQuine: even if I blamed the "meager" input for accepting a "projection," that would not be an explanation of his knowledge or true belief. I 245 Knowledge/knowledge theory/explanation/projection/StroudVsQuine: assuming that I assume with Quine that all my beliefs are just "overflowing output from lean input" (i.e. projection), that doesn't mean that I cannot think I have true beliefs, in the sense that there's nothing to stop my beliefs from being true. Problem: even if they were all true, I would not be in a position to explain, or even understand, how a knowledge theory should explain and understand them. I cannot explain how my true belief contributes to knowledge. |
Stroud I B. Stroud The Significance of philosophical scepticism Oxford 1984 |
| Stalnaker, R. | Williamson Vs Stalnaker, R. | I 159 Identity/Indistinguishability/Timothy WilliamsonVsStalnaker: (1996): Actuality Operator/@/Williamson: if we add it to K, we can prove the necessity of diversity from the necessary identity. I.e. actual different things are then necessarily different: Logical form: I- @ (∀x)(∀y)(x ≠ y > Nx ≠ y). I 160 Stalnaker: my independence argument above for necessary diversity was based on two assumptions 1. the extensional logic of identity is the same as the logic of indistinguishability, but 2. in a modal semantics without symmetry condition for the accessibility relation, individuals can be distinguishable in a possible world while they are not in another possible world. If one cannot "look back", the information about the distinction may be lost. Actuality Operator/Williamson: preserves the information because you can always look back to the actual world. General: the information about every possible world accessible from the actual world is reflected in the actual world and thus also in every other possible world in the model. Williamson: general thesis: I- Ni (x ≠ y > Nj x ≠ y) In our classical system, the universal generalization is invalid and unprovable with this (∀x)(∀y)(Ni (x ≠ y > Nj x ≠ y) because the predication implies existence and thus the negation of an identity statement can be true, not because the expressions refer to different things, but because these do not exist at all. But: the version with the quantifiers within the necessity operator Ni (∀x)(∀y) (x ≠ y > Nj x ≠ y) Will be valid even if the equal sign is defined as indistinguishable. But it will not be provable. Reason: K + @ is an incomplete quantified modal logic. Actuality Operator/Stalnaker: Problem: the semantic limitations for its interpretation have consequences that are not reflected in the propositional logic for this operator, consequences that occur when the range may change from possible worlds to possible worlds. There are propositions without identity which are valid but not provable, e.g. I- @ N (∀x)(Fx > @MFx) Counterpart Semantics/counterpart theory/necessity diversity/Stalnaker: the absence of the need of diversity in the counterpart theory. I 161 Is not connected with the limits of the expressiveness of modal logic (it is even missing in S5). The necessary identity is valid and provable here. Rather, the necessary difference cannot be proven with or without the actuality operator. StalnakerVsWilliamson: therefore I think that his argument does not threaten the thesis, Thesis: the necessity (or essentiality) of identity is more central in identity logic than the necessity of diversity. |
EconWillO Oliver E. Williamson Peak-load pricing and optimal capacity under indivisibility constraints 1966 |
| Various Authors | Hofstadter Vs Various Authors | II 108 Arthur Koestler: VsKoestler: "Koestler's Fallacy": general inability to see that unusual events is likely in the long run. Reason: 1. Because we do not notice non-events, we misjudge the basis. 2. We are weak in the assessment of event combinations. 3. We overlook the principle of equivalence of curious coincidences: for one theory of the supernatural, one chance is as good as another. II 482 Sapir-Whorf-Thesis: Language controls thinking. A programmer in the language X can only think in terms offered by the language. (HofstadterVsWhorf) VsWhorf: the power of a great literary work does not come from the language into which the author was accidentally born, otherwise all Russians would have to be great writers. It also stems from the history of his experiences and his ability to make experiences. II 486 Language/Hofstadter: Question: Why is there not a single word for the phrase "Come and have a look" after so many thousand years, e.g. "Kamhuseda"? Also novels have not become shorter in the last 200 years! Reason: The ideas have another dimension. II 688 Artificial Intelligence: Avon Barr: "information-processing cognition model". "Everything interesting about cognition happens above the 100 millisecond level, the time it takes to recognize your mother. VsBarr: just as well you can say:" everything above this level..., the time you need to recognize your mother." II 701 VsBarr: confusion of levels: "cognition as arithmetic process": even if the neurons cope with sums in an analogous way, this does not mean that the epiphenomena themselves also do arithmetic. Example: if taxis stop at red, this does not mean that traffic jams stop at red. II 701 Simon: (Artificial Intelligence pioneer): Common ground between the brain and information-processing processes is obvious. VsSimon: How can he believe that? Computers still do not have subcognitive actions in the most elementary sense. There is no common sense program. ((s) See Hofstadter II 696) Def Intelligence/Simon/Newell: mind, bound in any matter that can be arranged into patterns. II 703 Symbol/HofstadterVsSimon/Nevell: for me has more to do with representative expressiveness (representation). To represent something else, something must be immensely rich. HofstadterVsSymbol Manipulation, "symbol processing": the manipulation of meaningless signs is not enough to generate understanding, although it is enough to enrich them with meaning in a limited sense of the word. (Gödel, Escher, Bach, Chapters II to VI). II 704 Computer/Artificial Intelligence/AI/Consciousness/HofstadterVsSimon/Newell: Problem: they see the computer as lifeless, passive objects and also the symbols as passive. Denotation /Hofstadter: does not happen at all on the level of symbols! Also the single ant is not "symbolic". II 720 Thinking/Boole: believed he could grasp the "laws of thinking" through rules for manipulating claims. II 723 Cognition/VsSimon/Newell: Thesis: In every truly cognitive system there must be several levels that allow a rigid syntax at the lowest level to develop into a fluid semantics at the highest level. Symbolic events are reversed into non-symbolic events. II 724 Symbol/Newell: a physical symbol is actually identical to a Lisp Atom with an attached list. ("property list"). HofstadterVs. Symbol/Bits/Hofstadter: Bits are not symbols. Meaning/Lisp/Hofstadter: The logic of Lisp does not rise from a lower level. It is fully present in the written program, even when there is no computer. |
Hofstadter I Douglas Hofstadter Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid German Edition: Gödel, Escher, Bach - ein Endloses Geflochtenes Band Stuttgart 2017 Hofstadter II Douglas Hofstadter Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern German Edition: Metamagicum München 1994 |
| |||