Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bundle Theory | Kripke | I 78 Relevance of theory-dependent properties (VsBundle Theory). >Relevance, >Theory dependence. Bundle theory/(s): the bundle theory states that the meaning of names consists of a certain set of properties associated with a name, e.g. Moses. Then the meaning of the name Moses would be, among other things, "the one who led the people out of Egypt". Kripke: so this means that some properties are more important than others. However, a theory must specify how this weighting is to proceed. All bundle theories are ill at times because they do not specify exactly what a sufficient number of properties must be met. I 79 What are the relevant properties? If you say, "Moses did not exist", this can mean many things: it can mean: "the Israelites did not have a leader" or "their leader was not called Moses" or "there was no man who accomplished all this". >Properties/Kripke. Kripke: the essential point is that we know a priori that Moses, if the biblical story is essentially wrong, did not exist. The biblical story does not indicate any necessary qualities of Moses, so he could have lived without accomplishing any of these things. >Necessary/Kripke, >Necessary de re/Kripke. I 80 One could say "the Jonah of the Book never existed", as one could say "the Hitler of Nazi propaganda never existed". Existence is independent of representation. >Existence/Kripke, >Presentation, >Description dependence/Kripke. |
Kripke I S.A. Kripke Naming and Necessity, Dordrecht/Boston 1972 German Edition: Name und Notwendigkeit Frankfurt 1981 Kripke II Saul A. Kripke "Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2 (1977) 255-276 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 Kripke III Saul A. Kripke Is there a problem with substitutional quantification? In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J McDowell Oxford 1976 Kripke IV S. A. Kripke Outline of a Theory of Truth (1975) In Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox, R. L. Martin (Hg) Oxford/NY 1984 |
| Causal Explanation | Fraassen | Schurz I 228 Causality/van Fraassen: Thesis: the concept of causal process is theory-dependent. Schurz: ditto. Schurz: (1990a(1), 277) Proposal: to explicate the causality relation by reference to the maximal complete causal model ; M(A, E I W). (W: knowledge of circumstances initial conditions, etc.). >Theory dependence. Event/explanation/Schurz: in a deductive-nomological event explanation must. (i) the general premises must be law-like (ii) the conjunction A of antecedent premises must be a cause of E acceptable in the epistemic background system W. >Deductive-nomological explanation. 1. Schurz, G. (1990a). "Was ist wissenschaftliches Verstehen?". In: Schurz (1990, ed.) 235-267. |
Fr I B. van Fraassen The Scientific Image Oxford 1980 Schu I G. Schurz Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie Darmstadt 2006 |
| Correspondence Theory | Putnam | VII 440 PutnamVsCorrespondence Theory/correspondence theory/Putnam: if objects are theory-dependent, it is useless if one wants to define or explain truth in terms of "correspondence". Then there is no correspondence between language and language-independent pieces of the world. >Internal realism, >Correspondence, cf. >Ontological relativity. Solution/Putnam: like Kant’s transcendental idealism we need an > idealized rational acceptability. |
Putnam I Hilary Putnam Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993 Putnam I (a) Hilary Putnam Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (b) Hilary Putnam Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (c) Hilary Putnam What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (d) Hilary Putnam Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (e) Hilary Putnam Reference and Truth In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (f) Hilary Putnam How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (g) Hilary Putnam Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (h) Hilary Putnam Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (i) Hilary Putnam Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (k) Hilary Putnam "Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam II Hilary Putnam Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988 German Edition: Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999 Putnam III Hilary Putnam Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997 Putnam IV Hilary Putnam "Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164 In Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994 Putnam V Hilary Putnam Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981 German Edition: Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990 Putnam VI Hilary Putnam "Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Putnam VII Hilary Putnam "A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 SocPut I Robert D. Putnam Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000 |
| Given | Field | I 218 Given/Givenness/Field: it is not clear what it means for a situation to be "given". - Which is linguistics- and theory-dependent. >Language dependence, >Theory depenence, >Ontology, >Existence, >Theories, >Knowledge. Problem: there is no way to describe a situation in which the relation - "double distance". (P3) "MG Eu (u is a matter particle and u is between x and y and xuCuy and uyCzw and the spatial relationships between x, y, z and w are the same as they actually are)" diverge. Spelling: C: congruent. Problem: if we define "triple distance" according to (P3), we have to show that the distance is not at the same time twice and three times. - Then we need Substantivalism or Heavy-Duty Platonism. >Platonism, >Heavy duty platonism, >Substantivalism. |
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 |
| Internal Realism | Putnam | VI 389 Internal Realism/Putnam: internal realism is an empirical theory - collective spokesperson-behavior. In contrast, metaphysical realism is not empirical, but a model (like billiard balls). VI 400 Internal Realism/Putnam: how a theory "is understood" cannot be discussed within the theory itself. Whether the theory has a clearly intended interpretation, has no absolute sense. Metaphysical Realism: metaphysical realism asks for a theory-independent fact in regards to what a term refers to within a theory. Internal Realism: our use of "cow" assumes that "cow" is understood. This works but only with a verificationist approach of understanding - not with a truth-conditional. Hence, the use is already explained. >Truthconditional semantics, >Verificationism, >Use. --- I (a) 18 Internal Realism/Putnam: (truth relative to a theory): here use and reference are linked. I (e) 151 Internal Realism/PutnamVsDummett: internal realism is related to its anti-realism, but truth is not identified with justification but with an idealization of justification. >Anti-realism, >Justification, >Idealization. Quine: the justification conditions change with our corpus of knowledge. I (f) 156ff Internal Realism/Putnam: the ontology is theory-dependent. Truth: truth has rationalized acceptability. Brains in a vat are not a possible world, because they are only assessable from God's perspective. >Brains in a vat. Observation through a "different world" is excluded by definition. The internal realism recognizes an "internal conceptual scheme", within which objects exist. Internalism: "rabbit" refers just to rabbit. >Conceptual scheme, >Gavagai. I (f) 159 ExternalismVs: externalism does not tell us what reference is. Internalism: tautologies are sufficient for reference (> Meaning Postulates). Causality is irrelevant for reference. "Alien" refers to aliens. ExternalismVs: the meaning arises for us by association with "not from this earth" and that is ultimately causally mediated. E.g. natural type: the natural type is the basic concept for future horses. I (f) 160 InternalismVs"of the same kind": "of the same kind" does not make sense outside of a category system. Everything is kind of the same kind. There are no extra facts that make true that horses are horses, there are just horses. >Natural kinds. VsInternalism: but in this way self-identifying objects are accepted (and the world arranges itself). Putnam: ultimately, there are self-identifying objects, but not in the externalist sense. Solution: objects are made and discovered. Then they have intrinsic labels (but they are not mind-independent). |
Putnam I Hilary Putnam Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993 Putnam I (a) Hilary Putnam Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (b) Hilary Putnam Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (c) Hilary Putnam What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (d) Hilary Putnam Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (e) Hilary Putnam Reference and Truth In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (f) Hilary Putnam How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (g) Hilary Putnam Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (h) Hilary Putnam Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (i) Hilary Putnam Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (k) Hilary Putnam "Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam II Hilary Putnam Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988 German Edition: Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999 Putnam III Hilary Putnam Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997 Putnam IV Hilary Putnam "Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164 In Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994 Putnam V Hilary Putnam Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981 German Edition: Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990 Putnam VI Hilary Putnam "Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Putnam VII Hilary Putnam "A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 SocPut I Robert D. Putnam Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000 |
| Ontology | Rorty | IV 25 f Ontology: a significant degree of acculturation is required to answer questions such as: does God exist?, there are numbers?, is there justice? RortyVsReichenbach: today ontological status no longer depends on definability. >Ontological Relativity, >Observability, >Platonism, Theory-Dependence, >Definition, >Definability. |
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 |
| Picture Theory | Rorty | I 323 f VsPicture Theory/VsImage Theory/VsTractatus/language/Rorty: Putnam/Goodman: a non-intentional theory of language can not explain learning and understanding of the language. >Understanding, >Language acquisition. Wittgenstein late: ditto. I 326 Also non-intentional relations are theory-dependent. >Theory dependence. |
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 |
| Ramsey Sentence | Schurz | I 213 Ramsey-sentene/RS/Theoretical Terms/Schurz: Here Theoretical Terms are not eliminated completely, but existentially quantified over them. Given a theory , which we now take to be a single theorem T(τ1,...τn,) (the conjunction of all axioms of T. Theoretical terms: τ1,...τn. Moreover, there are various non-theoretical terms π which are not written on separately. Then the Ramsey theorem of T is: (5.8 1) R(T): EX1,...Xn: T(X1,...Xn) Everyday language translation: there are theoretical entities X1,..Xn which satisfy the assertions of the theory. Pointe: an empirical (not theoretical) proposition follows from T exactly if it follows from R(T). ((s) It follows from the theory if it follows from the Ramsey theorem of the theory, i.e., from the assumption that the theoretical entities exist.) Thus, it holds: (5.8 -2) E(R(T)) = E(T) Notation: E(T): empirical proposition that follows from theory T. Schurz: i.e. a theory and its Ramsey theorem have the same empirical content. >Carnap-sentence/Schurz, >Empirical content. Ramsey-sentence: Here no more theoretical terms occur! Instead of it: "theoretical" variables. Therefore many, including Ramsey, saw the Ramsey theorem as an empirical theorem (not as a theoretical one. Ramsey theorem: should thus be the sought empirically equivalent non-theoretical axiomatization of the theory. HempelVs/MaxwellVs/Schurz: this is problematic because the RS asserts the existence of certain entities that we call "theoretical". Ramsey theorem/interpretation/realism/instrumentalism/Schurz: the interpretation of the RS as theoretical or non-theoretical depends on whether one interprets 2nd level quantifiers realistically or instrumentally. (a) instrumentalist interpretation: here one assumes that the range of individuals D consists of empirically accessible individuals, and runs the variables Xi over arbitrary subsets of D. (There are no theoretical individuals here). >Instrumentalism/Schurz. Whether these extensions correspond to certain theoretical real properties or not is inconsequential. (Sneed 1971(1), Ketland 2004(2), 291) I 214 Ramsey-sentence/instrumentalism: is then model-theoretically an empirical theorem! Because the models that determine the truth value of R(T) are purely empirical models (D, e1,...em). " ei": extensions of the empirical terms, pi: empirical terms of T. Structuralism: calls these empirical models "partial" models (Balzer et al. 1987(3),57). Empirical model/Schurz: is easily extendible to a full model (D, e1,...em, t1,..tn), ti: are the extensions of the theoretical terms. Pointe: this does not yet mean that R(T) is logically equivalent to E(T). Because R(T) is a 2nd level proposition and E(T) contains 1st level propositions. >Structuralism/Schurz. Def Ramsey-eliminable: if there is a 1st level empirical proposition equivalent to a RS L, then the theortical term is called Ramsey-eliminable. (Sneed 1971(1), 53). b) Realist interpretation: (Lewis, 1970(4), Papineau 1996(5)): assumes that the existence quantified variables denote real theoretical entities. The models are then no longer simple realist models: >Realism/Schurz. 1. New theoretical individuals are added to the individual domain. New: Dt. 2. not every subset of Dt corresponds to a real property. En. Ex In the simplest case, one must assume a set Et of extensions of "genuine" theoretical properties over which 2nd level variables run. Realism/Ramsey-sentence: new: now not every empirical model of instrumentalistically interpreted RS is extensible to a model of realistically interpreted Ramsey-sentence, because the quantifiers (Exi) of R(T) can have satisfactions in the power set of Det but no satisfactions in Et. In philosophical words: an empirical model, which fulfills the RS instrumentalistically, cannot be read off whether the respective theoretical entities, whose existence is postulated by R(T), are merely useful fictions or real existing entities. Instrumentalism: Proposition: Theoretical entities are useful fictions. Realism/Ramsey Theorem: here R(T) contains more than just the empirical content of a theory, it also contains the total synthetic content: if we assume that the meaning of Theoretical Terms is not determined by anything other than this theory itself, then the assertion that T makes about the world seems to be precisely that of R(T): there are unobservable entities X1,...Xn that satisfy the total assertion of the theory T(X1,...Xn). >Carnap-sentence/Schurz. 1. Sneed, J. D. (1971). The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 2. Ketland, J. (2004). "Empirical Adequacy and Ramsification", British Journal for the Philosoph y of Science 55, 287-300. 3. Balzer, W. et al (1987). An Architectonic for Science. Dordrecht: Reidel. 4. Lewis, D. (1970). "How to definie Theoretical Terms", wiederabgedruckt in ders. Philosophical Papers Vol I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Papineau, D. (1996). "Theory-dependent Terms", >Philosophy of Science 63, 1- 20. |
Schu I G. Schurz Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie Darmstadt 2006 |
| Relevance | Kripke | I 78 Relevance of theory-dependent properties (VsBundle Theory). Bundle theory/(s): thesis: the bundle theory states that the meaning of names consists of a certain set of properties associated with a name, e.g. Moses. Then the meaning of the name Moses would be, among other things, "the one who led the people out of Egypt". Kripke: so this means that some properties are more important than others. However, a theory must specify how this weighting is to proceed. All bundle theories are ill at times because they do not specify exactly what a sufficient number of properties must be met. >Bundle theory/Kripke. I 79 What are the relevant properties? If you say,"Moses did not exist", this can mean many things: it can mean: "the Israelites did not have a leader" or "their leader was not called Moses" or "there was no man who accomplished all this. Kripke: the essential point is that we know a priori that Moses, if the biblical story is essentially wrong, did not exist. The biblical story does not indicate any necessary qualities of Moses, so he could have lived without accomplishing any of these things. I 80 One could say "The Jonah of the Book never existed", as one could say "The Hitler of Nazi propaganda never existed". Existence is independent of representation. >Properties/Kripke. |
Kripke I S.A. Kripke Naming and Necessity, Dordrecht/Boston 1972 German Edition: Name und Notwendigkeit Frankfurt 1981 Kripke II Saul A. Kripke "Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2 (1977) 255-276 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 Kripke III Saul A. Kripke Is there a problem with substitutional quantification? In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J McDowell Oxford 1976 Kripke IV S. A. Kripke Outline of a Theory of Truth (1975) In Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox, R. L. Martin (Hg) Oxford/NY 1984 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraassen, B. van | Cartwright Vs Fraassen, B. van | I 10 Asymmetry/Explanation/Causality/Fraassen: (The scientific image): Thesis: the asymmetries (by way of explanation) are not real!. CartwrightVsFraassen: I think he is mistaken. But his question is strong and could cause us to abandon certain explanation strategies. Cartwright Thesis: what we do not give up so easily are our strategies for action in everyday life. E.g. spraying marshes with anti-mosquito agents is effective E.g. burning sheets of malaria patients is not. I 89 FraassenVsTheoretical Entities/Cartwright: why should one believe in them?. CartwrightVsFraassen: theoretical entities exist, because there is no real regularity at the level of phenomena. Regularity/Cartwright: Only exists at the level of theoretical entities, not of phenomena. Law/Laws of Nature/Cartwright: their universal applicability does not only explain why the phenomena behave as regularly as they do, but also why we sometimes see exceptions. Van Fraassen admits that. Explanation/van Fraassen: Problem: but from the fact that a bunch of principles ensures the phenomena it cannot be concluded that they are true!. right: E.g. "I think therefore I am". wrong: E.g. "P explains Q. Q is true, therefore P is true". I 92 Electron/Cartwright: Important argument: is not an entity of any particular theory! (Electrons are not theory-dependent!). That means it is not about Bohr’s electrons in contrast to Rutherford’s electrons. CartwrightVsFraassen: I choose an E.g. of van Fraassen to show how we differ: E.g. Cloud chamber/Fraassen: unlike the contrails in the sky, we cannot see anything at the frond of the cloud chamber trail, no matter how well we look. Therefore, there are no theoretical entities. CartwrightVsFraassen: I agree with the premise, not the conclusion. I 93 Theoretical entities/Cartwright: The special thing about explanations that involve theoretical entities is that they are causal explanations (not inferring the best explanation). And existence assertion is characteristic of causal explanations. Cause/Causality/Fraassen/Cartwright: he does not believe in causes. The whole causality is a fiction. I 160 Theory//Fraassen/Sellars/Cartwright: both have extraordinary respect for the theory. Both expect it to grasp the facts about the observable correctly. For van Fraassen, theoretical assertions (about the unobservable) do not have to do that. CartwrightVsFraassen/CartwrightVsSellars: a good theory does not have either! The observation consequences ((s)> observation conditional) can be broadly what we believe to be true, but they are usually not the best we can expect. CartwrightVsFraassen: 2) For me, it is not only about the observable. I suppose theoretical entities and causal processes. This brings me closer to Sellars. |
Car I N. Cartwright How the laws of physics lie Oxford New York 1983 CartwrightR I R. Cartwright A Neglected Theory of Truth. Philosophical Essays, Cambridge/MA pp. 71-93 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 CartwrightR II R. Cartwright Ontology and the theory of meaning Chicago 1954 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | Field Vs Quine, W.V.O. | I 129 Nominalism/Philosophy of Science/FieldVsQuine-Putnam Argument: An argument to show that nominalistic resources are adequate for good science would be: (E) For each Platonic scientific theory there is a nominalist theory to which the Platonic one is a conservative extension. But this is trivial if there are no restrictions regarding which sets of sentences that have been completed under a logical entailment count as theories. Of course, any Platonic theory T is a conservative extension of the "theory" which consists of nominalistic inferences from T. We have to reinforce (E) so that uninteresting nominalistic theories are excluded. Science Without Numbers: here I did not argue with (E). (E) or any amplifying extension is an existence assertion of a sufficiently wide variation of nominalist theories, and that goes beyond the assertion of the conservatism of mathematical theory. I 241 Conservatism/Mathematics/Field: Truth does not require conservatism! True empirical theories are obviously not conservative! But conservatism is certainly also recognized by most realists for mathematics. For they say that good mathematics is not only true, but necessarily true! Conservatism/Field: (see above) conservative mathematics has the properties of necessary truth, without having to be true itself! Quine: is a realist in terms of mathematics. He wants to nip talk of mathematical necessity in the bud. But for that he needs conservatism. FieldVsQuine: for that he would have to make a major renovation to his thesis that mathematics continuously flows into the rest of the other sciences. Logic/Empiricism/Quine: Thesis: logic could be empirically refuted. Conservatism/Field: The fact that mathematics is empirically refuted is consistent with that, while the logic remains intact. IV 407 Internal Realism/IR/Existence/Ontology/Property/Putnam: what kind of objects exist can only be decided within a theory, according to the IR. FieldVsPutnam: I’m not sure I understand what he means. I suppose he thinks there are several correct theories that answer the question of ontology differently. But this is too trivial. sharper: (Put p 72 74.) two equally correct theories may have different ontologies. PutnamVsRedundancy Theory: does not offer an explanation of our understanding. FieldVsPutnam: this implied neither mind-independence nor theory-dependence, however! And it does not refute the correspondence theory. E.g. you can explain the behavior of electrically charged bodies with or without the assumption of fields. Ontology/Existence/Field: most of us would say that there is more than we are forced to assert. FieldVsQuine: E.g. is rarely critical to assert the existence of unseparated rabbit parts in addition to the existence of rabbits. FieldVsPutnam: if this is clear, then you can hardly draw anti-realistic conclusions from the fact that two equally good theories may differ in ontology. |
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 |
| |||