Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negation | Wright | I 275/76 Negation/logic/truth/correctness/correct: if both truth and correctness are playing a role, there is a distinction (see above > Neg) between the a) proper, strict negation: turns any true or correct sentence in a false or incorrect - another negation form: b) negation: acts so that a true (or correct) sentence is constructed exactly then when his argument does not reach truth. >Correctness/Wright, >Truth, >Assertibility. I 276 Negation/WrightVsBoghossian: the proposal does indeed assume that ""A" is true" should be complementary to the negation of A in the latter sense. A perfectly reasonable counterproposal is, however, that A should be rather complementary to the strict notion of the former negation. Then, for the case that A is only correct, the valuation of ""A" is true" is also correct and the application of the truth predicate will be generally conservative. WrightVsVs: but the (DB) carpet now throws elsewhere wrinkles >Conservativity. I 88 Negation: Definition negation operator "Neg": "Neg A" is true if A is false and false in all other cases (e.g. with a lack of assertibility or Super-assertibility) >Superassertibility. Incorrect solution: then with low validity of A <> B: negation equivalence "Neg (P) is true" <> Neg ("P" is true)? WrightVs: that will not work, even with "assertible" instead of "true". |
WrightCr I Crispin Wright Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge 1992 German Edition: Wahrheit und Objektivität Frankfurt 2001 WrightCr II Crispin Wright "Language-Mastery and Sorites Paradox" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 WrightGH I Georg Henrik von Wright Explanation and Understanding, New York 1971 German Edition: Erklären und Verstehen Hamburg 2008 |
| Nonfactualism | Wright | I 272ff Non-Factualism/Boghossian/Wright:> if we assume nonfactualism, no discourse can be more than >Correctness, >Correctness/Wright. (i) it is not the case that S has the truth condition that P has a truth condition. WrightVs: this can be reformulated with disquotation into (vi) it is not the case that it is not the case that S has the truth condition that P has a truth condition. >Disquotation, >Tarski scheme, >Truth conditions. But denying the truth is not inconsistent with correctness of the assertion. >Contradictions, >Negation, >Assertibility. But (i) is incorrect, if both truth and correctness are in the game, the matrix for the truth predicate must be non-conservative: i.e. the value of A is true in all cases, false or incorrect, except those where A has the truth value true. >truth transfer, >conservativeness. |
WrightCr I Crispin Wright Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge 1992 German Edition: Wahrheit und Objektivität Frankfurt 2001 WrightCr II Crispin Wright "Language-Mastery and Sorites Paradox" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 WrightGH I Georg Henrik von Wright Explanation and Understanding, New York 1971 German Edition: Erklären und Verstehen Hamburg 2008 |
| Vocabulary | Brandom | I 199 Conservativeness/Expansion/Language/Tonk/Brandom: pro conservative expansion: if the rules are not inferentially conservative, they allow new material inferences and thus change the contents that were associated with the old vocabulary expressive logic/Brandom: requires that no new inferences that only contain old vocabulary be rendered appropriate by this (if they were not before). >Conservatity. I 200 E.g. "boche"/Dummett: non-conservative extension, statements that do not (!) contain the expression might now be inferred from others that do not contain it either E.g. inference from German nationality to cruelty BrandomVsDummett: this is not about non-conservatism: it only shows that the expression "boche" has a content which is not contained in the other expressions E.g. the cocnept "temperature" has also changed with the methods of measurement. It's not about novelty of a concept, but undesirable inferences. >Concepts, >Words. I 204 In particular the material content of concepts is lost when the conceptual content is identified with the truth conditions. >Truth conditions. I 427/8 Definition Supervenience/Brandom: one vocabulary supervenes another if and only if there could be no two situations in which true assertions (i.e. facts) would differ expressably in the supervening vocabulary, while the true assertions do not differ expressably in the vocabulary that is being supervened more neutral: if it is clear what is defined in one language, then it is clear what is defined in the other. >Supervenience. I 958 Order/Twin Earth/TE/Brandom: it does not help to speak in concepts of what can be distinguished by the individuals, because what they can react depends on which reactions are considered to be different, and then the same problem occurs with regard to the vocabulary used Problem: specifying a vocabulary that satisfies two conditions: 1) The twins are indistinguishable in different environments because of their description in that vocabulary (physical language is not sufficient for that). 2) The sub-determination of the semantic properties of their states in this limited vocabulary must point at something interesting. --- II 76 Material inference/Sellars/Brandom: from "a east of b" to "b west of a" also from flash to thunder, needs no logic. II 79 Formally valid ones can be derived from good material inferences, but not vice versa Proof: if a subset of somehow privileged vocabulary is given, such an inference is correct if it is materially good and it cannot become a bad one if non-privileged vocabulary is replaced by privileged vocabulary. If one is only interested in logical form, one must be able to distinguish a part of the vocabulary as a especially logical beforehand. E.g. if one wants to explore theological inferences, one must investigate which replacement of non-theological vocabulary with non-theological preserves the material quality of the inference. II 94 Definition "tonk"/Belnap: Rule 1): licenses the transition from p to p tonk q for any q. Rule 2): licenses the transition from p tonk q to q. With that we have a "network map" for inferences: any conclusion is thus permitted. PriorVsBelnap: Bankruptcy of all definitions in the style of Gentzen. BelnapVsPrior: Solution: Restriction: no inferences with only old vocabulary that were not allowed previously,otherwise the old contents would be changed retrospectively. |
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 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empiricism | Quine Vs Empiricism | IV 397 British Empiricism: based on ideas in the mind. These are of course not intersubjectively observable. That means the foundation is private, not public. QuineVsBritish Empiricism: VsMentalistic approach: in the Quine's eyes not consistent. One should stick to what openly observed is true to anyone. Language is nothing private, but something social. IV 398 The language: a social skill that is acquired through the observation of the social use. The externalization of empiricism leads to behavioral access to meaning. (Behaviorism). IV 402 QuineVsBritish Empiricism: Is based on the assumption of ideas (derived from Locke). Uncritical mentalism. Too simple picture of the experiential reference of languages and theories. VI 11 "Linguistic Turn"/Quine: that was good, but not good enough: the distinction between observation sentences and theoretical propositions was only made derivatively, no theoretical terms should appear. Therefore Reichenbach used "bridge sentences" to connect the two sentence types. (VsBritish Empiricism). Observation/Quine: we do not start with objects (we eliminate them), but with sentences! This allows us to define the observation sentence, without bothering about whether it is theory-free or not! We also no longer need to decide which objects the words should designate! (Without reification). Instead of objects stimulus meaning: the willingness to agree to a sentence. VI 11/12 Singular Term/Singular Terms/Ontology/Existence/Quine: if we had assumed terms instead of sentences, we would have skipped the whole issue of objectification and always conceded object-relation from the hollow gut. Meaning Theory/M.Th./Quine: must be empirical. QuineVsLogical Empiricism: neither the analytical truths nor the observation base resists the skeptical attack. V 189 Theory/Ontology/Quine: how should a scientific theory look like at best? We want as many as possible and good predictions. Guiding principles: simplicity and conservatism. V 190 Both are in a dialectical relation! (To use an expression by my students). An strong oversimplification can justify a relatively large deviation. Between the two, we need a compromise. Conservatism/Quine: among other things, caused by our lack of imagination. But also prudence when it comes to hypotheses. Simplicity/Conservativeness: both are already at work in language learning. Language Learning/Quine: occurs in leaps and bounds. Is always based on similarities and analogies. V 191 Short steps are conservative. They are guided by relative empiricism. Def Relative Empiricism/Quine: do not stray further from sense data than necessary. Quine pro: That keeps theory changes low. QuineVsRadical Empiricism: we gave it up when we gave up hope to reduce talk of objects to talk of sense data. Important argument: that requires us to stick with the substitutional quantification over abstract objects. This speaks to the nominalistic mind. It manifests itself in relative empiricism, for both are the same. Nominalism: must not overestimate the ontological harmlessness of the variables of sQ. In general, we can say the values of variables determine the whole ontology if we only have object variables, truth functions and predicates. Stalnaker I 3 QuineVsEmpiricism/Two Dogmas/Stalnaker: when it comes to accepting or not accepting a whole language, along with a theory that is formulated in this language, then it is not certain that there is a base for a distinction which are the language rules (rules), and what are the judgments about the world. There is no theory-neutral way to separate factual questions from semantic ones. |
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 Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Field, H. | Shapiro Vs Field, H. | Field I 125 Stewart ShapiroVsField: (Conservativeness and incompleteness"). I 126 Konservativität/ShapiroVsField: sollte man entweder a) semantisch oder b) beweistheoretisch (syntaktisch) nehmen. je nachdem, ob man die Folgebeziehung (Konsequenz) semantisch oder als Ableitbarkeit versteht. Die Unterscheidung ist wichtig, weil wir bald Logiken höherer Stufe betrachten, die keine vollständigen Beweisverfahren haben. Logik 2. Stufe/SwN/Field: hier gibt es kein Vollständigkeits Theorem: wir müssen uns die ganze Zeit an semantische Begriffe halten. Wir können platonistische Argumente für semantische Konservativität der Mengenlehre im Kontext der Logik 2. Stufe geben, aber keine beweistheoretische. ShapiroVsField: die Wahl der semantischen statt der beweistheoretischen Konservativität war philosophisch falsch: 1. Field sagt, daß die Nützlichkeit der Mathematik in der Erleichterung und Verkürzung von Deduktionen liegt. Nichtsdestotrotz können längere Deduktionen gegeben werden. I 127 ShapiroVsField: 1. das verträgt sich nicht mit dem Anspruch, daß es um semantische Folgebeziehung geht. (Field pro Shapiro). Field: ich hätte sagen sollen, daß Mathematik nützlich ist, weil es oft leichter zu sehen ist, daß eine nominalistische Aussage aus einer nominalistischen Theorie plus Mathematik folgt, als zu sehen, daß sie aus der nominalistischen Theorie alleine folgt. ShapiroVsField: 2. (tiefer): zweiter Grund, warum Beweistheorie wichtiger als semantische Folgebeziehung ist: der Nominalismus hat Schwierigkeiten, logische Folgerungen (Konsequenzen) zu verstehen, die über das hinausgehen, was beweistheoretisch erklärbar ist. FieldVsShapiro: 1. die Folgebeziehung kann modal erklärt werden, und die Modalität kann ohne Erklärung in Begriffen platonistischer Entitäten verstanden werden. 2. die gleichen Schwierigkeiten bestehen für die Beweistheorie, d.h. Ableitbarkeit: die Erklärung müßte über die Existenz abstrakter Sequenzen abstrakter Ausdruckstypen erfolgen, von denen kein Token jemals gesprochen oder geschrieben wurde. I 133 ShapiroVsField: (nach Gödels 2. Unvollständigkeits Theorem): Field: Anwendung von Mathematik auf physikalische Theorien ist unterminiert, wenn die physikalischen Theorien als 1. Stufe aufgefaßt werden. FieldVsShapiro: Abschnitt 5 und 6. |
Shapiro I St. Shapiro Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology Oxford 2000 Varian I Carl Shapiro Hal Varian Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy Brighton, MA 1998 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 |
| Platonism | Field Vs Platonism | III 105 1st Order Theory/Conclusion/Field: for each 1st order theory there is a better one that seems to be intuitively true if the original is, and this one is more expressive (stronger). III 106 This applies to nominalistic as well as for Platonic theories. Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument for the inadequacy of N0 if Platonic 1st order theories cannot be regarded as inadequate as well. Conclusion: if you’re set on 1st order theories, there is no obvious way to decide whether one is good enough to deliver the consequences needed in practice and to exclude the "recherché" consequences (with Gödel sentence). FieldVsPlatonism: So the above argument is not an objection to Platonism. 2nd order theory: is, of course, definitely a remedy for this problem. But we have seen that N (which is 2nd order) has all the consequences that the Platonistic ML 2nd order has, and therefore it is difficult to see what the benefits of Platonism should be in the context of the 2nd order logic. I 112 Model Theory/MT/Explanation/Field: Do we also need a nominalistic analogy to the Platonic MT? This is a verbal question. It depends on whether we understand modal logic itself as an analogue to platonistic model theory. If so, then model theory is like physics and we can use the previous considerations. And we have to use them, because the applicability of metalogic cannot be explained not solely from conservativeness. If the logic is not modal. If, on the other hand, we do not consider modal logic like that, then the model theory is like the proof theory: we do not need a nominalistic analogue of the model theory, because it does not serve as an explanation. Then it only serves to find out about possibility and impossibility. Then we do not need to assume the truth of the statements (VsPlatonism). |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 |
| |||