Dictionary of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute

[german]

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:

Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term

The author or concept searched is found in the following 1 entries.

Disputed term/author/ism	Author	Entry	Reference
Coordinate System	Kanitscheider	I 169 Coordinate system/reference system/channel separator: important difference: It is trivial that any law can be formulated in any number of different coordinate systems. It is not trivial that an experiment in a rotating or in a non-rotating reference frame allows the same qualitative description. >Weyl principle/Kanitscheider, >Relativity theory. I 295 Special relativity/SR/Kanitscheider: without matter, without gravity! The moment matter is introduced, immediately excellent reference systems can be used, which move with the average velocity of matter. Coordinate system/channel separator: These comobile coordinate systems of the FRW world allow to fit the many local times into a universal time. Such a cosmic time is a candidate for the objective processuality of the world.	Kanitsch I B. Kanitscheider Kosmologie Stuttgart 1991 Kanitsch II B. Kanitscheider Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996

The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 controversies.

Disputed term/author/ism	Author Vs Author	Entry	Reference
Absolutism	Stalnaker Vs Absolutism	I 124 absolute/Possible Worlds/poss.w./Stalnaker: but that is not the sense in which we usually speak of properties and relations as absolute! Nobody would argue Vsabsolute simultaneity for the reason that simultaneity is contingent that simultaneous events could have taken place one after another. Suppose we are Vsabsolute identity in Salmons sense. Question: can we still understand the intraworldly or the poss.w.-relative identity relation as "to be the same thing" independent from the description of things? Stalnaker: there is no reason why we could not do so. Def identity/relative to poss.w./Stalnaker: identity is always the binary relation whose extension in every possible world w is the set of pairs so that d is in the domain of w. Nonexistence/predication/predication utterances/Stalnaker: problem: if the object does not exist. Thesis: I prefer a modal semantics that requires that the extension of a predicate is a subset of (things-) domains of their poss.w.. Then x=x is wrong if the value that is attributed to x does not exist (or has no counterparts). Versus: If you drop this condition (which is unusual) you allow that non-existent objects have properties and stand in relations. I 214 "Pessimistic view"/Jackson: e.g. a pessimist Vsabsolute quiescent point: Someone says, there is no absolute quiescent point, everything what we can represent by language are facts about relative position. Suppose we want to refute this: one could specify a coordinate system and a unit. E.g. take the mass centers of the earth, sun and mars, form a plane and in addition the moment of Newton's birth. Then we have an x-y plane then we introduce the units meter and second and define for each axis positive and negative directions. Then we have the means to specify absolute position as quadruples of real numbers, at least if we assume that there are absolute positions that you can specify. With that we ignore that our reference points (sun, mars could be vague). Vs: Jackson's skeptics could argue that this is not really allowed to say how things are absolute but only how they relate to the sun, earth and moon at the time of Newton's birth. VsVs/Stalnaker: but it would not be clear on what basis he replies that. I 215 We did therefore not escape the problem that all our words, even all of our representational resources come from the actual world - there is no point outside where we could look for it. Important argument: but that does not imply that the contents of whose expression we use our words, are inevitably dependent from many of the facts that our words have these contents. I 226 Relationalism/relationism/space/Leibniz/Stalnaker: Thesis: pro conceptual independence of space and time. Stalnaker: I think he is coherent. Thesis: there is no absolute localisation (Position, no absolute quiescent point). That means that the assignment of number triples to space points is arbitrary. RelationismVsAbsolutism/Stalnaker: the point of issue is whether the identification of spatial points is conventionally in time. Relationism: there is no absolute movement. Only change in time of the relative positions of things. Movement/Relationism/Stalnaker: Assertions about movements are totally useful here! But they are always understood in terms of a frame (frame of reference). Analogy/Stalnaker: suppose someone tried to refute relationism with an argument analogous to that of Shoemaker, meaning the one of the gradual change. Interpersonal spectrum: analogous to his denial is the denial of the meaningfulness of the thesis that the universe could also be shifted one meter to the left. Such a poss.w. would only be a conventional new description. I 227 Relationism: but even he has to admit - it is then said - that the chair could be first placed alone one meter to the left, and then gradually all other objects. This is certainly not impossible. And it would turn nonsense, one would say that at the last change the initial state would at a stroke again exist. ((s) In order to meet the thesis that nothing has changed on the whole). Stalnaker: I hope no one takes this argument seriously VsRelationism. Relationism/Stalnaker: has no reason to abandon his view that the overall effect of the series of changes leaves the things as they were.	Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Descartes, R.	Hintikka Vs Descartes, R.	II 113 Cogito/Descartes/Hintikka: the cogito is not a premise whose conclusion would be the sum. Solution/Hintikka: it is an act of thought which itself proves the subject its existence. analog: a speech act also proves its existence to the subject E.g. Mark Twain says: "I exist". HintikkaVsDescartes: Problem: 1) What kind of entity is the "res" which is to be proved by that? 2) In order to answer the question of what was actually proved, we need to clarify what status the entity has. E.g. Italo Calvino: Charlemagne asks a knight, why he has the visor closed. He responds: "Sir, I do not exist". II 114 Existence/Nonexistence/Subsistence/Hintikka: in this example, the knight does not exist in a certain way, but does in another, in the one in which he can be the hero of the story. Important argument: i.e. here the speech act is no conclusive evidence of his existence. ((s) Within the fiction). Cogito/Descartes/Hintikka: it would also have been wrong, had Descartes drawn the following conclusion: "Cogito, ergo Descartes exists". ((s) I.e. use the name instead of the "I" that is implied in "sum"). analogously: E.g. if someone told me on the street: "Mark Twain exists" it would be just as little proof for the existence of Mark Twain. It would have to be Mark Twain himself who carries out the speech act. Cogito/Knowledge/Hintikka: Problem: Descartes must know additionally that the thinker in question is this entity, or this type of entity. Existence/Identity/Entity/Identification/Quine/Hintikka: Quine: "No entity without identity": i.e. Descartes needs to know something else about himself in order to be able to say that he exists. Solution/Hintikka: we must distinguish two kinds of cross-world identification (cross identification). a) perspective (subject-centered) identification: it is not subjective, however, even if it is relative to a person. II 115 It uses only one coordinate system that is defined by reference to the user. It depends, however, on objective general principles. b) public (object-centered) idenification. Knowing Who/Seeing/Visual Perception/Perspective Identification/Hintikka: Def Seeing/Hintikka: seeing an object: persons and bodies that take the same space in John’s field of perception can be identified by him. He also knows there can be different objects at different times in that place. Important argument: John does not need to know who this person is! Knowing Who/Seeing Who/Hintikka: for this we need an additional identification that is based on public (object-centered) criteria.	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
Lewis, C.I.	Schwarz Vs Lewis, C.I.	Schwarz I 31 Personal identity/SchwarzVsLewis: his criterion is not accurate and provides in interesting cases no answer. E.g. continuity after brain surgery, etc. But Lewis does not want that. Our (vague) everyday term should only be made explicitly. Beaming/Teleportation/Doubling/Lewis: all this is allowed by his theory. Schwarz I 60 Identity/Lewis/Centered world/Possible world/Schwarz: my desire to be someone else, does not refer to the whole world, but only to my position in the world. E.g. Twin Earth/Schwarz: one of the two planets is blown tomorrow, the two options (that we are on the one or the other) do however not correspond to two possible worlds! Detailed knowledge would not help out where we are, because they are equal. ((s) so no "centered world"). Actually, we want to know where we ourselves are in the world. (1979a⁽¹⁾,1983b(2),1986e⁽³⁾:231 233). SchwarzVsLewis: says too little about these perspective possibilities. It is not enough here to allow multiple counterparts (c.p.) in a world. It should not just be possible that Humphrey is exactly as the actual Nixon, he should also to be allowed to be different. Humphrey may not be a GS of himself. (> Irreflexive counterpart relation,> see below Section 9.2. "Doxastic counterparts". Similarity relation. No matter what aspects you emphasize: Nixon will never be more similar to Humphrey than to himself. Schwarz I 100 Fundamental properties/SchwarzVsLewis: this seems to waver whether he should form the fE to the conceptual basis for the reduction of all predicates and ultimately all truths, or only a metaphysical basis, on which all truths supervene. (>Supervenience, >Reduction). Schwarz I 102 Naturalness/Natural/Property/Content/Lewis: the actual content is then the most natural candidate that matches the behavior. "Toxic" is not a perfectly natural property (p.n.p.), but more natural than "more than 3.78 light years away" and healthy and less removed and toxic". Naturalness/Degree/Lewis: (1986e⁽³⁾:, 61,63,67 1984b⁽⁴⁾:66): the naturalness of a property is determined by the complexity or length of their definition by perfectly natural properties. PnE: are always intrinsically and all their Boolean combinations remain there. Problem: extrinsic own sheep threaten to look unnatural. Also would e.g. "Red or breakfast" be much more complicated to explain than e.g. "has charge -1 or a mass, whose value is a prime number in kg. (Although it seems to be unnatural by definition). Naturalness/Property/Lewis: (1983c⁽⁵⁾, 49): a property is, the more natural the more it belongs to surrounding things. Vs: then e.g. "cloud" less natural than e.g. "table in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant or clock showing 7:23". Schw I 103 Naturalness/Properties/Lewis: (1983c⁽⁵⁾: 13f): naturalness could be attributed to similarity between characteristics: E.g. a class is more natural, the more the properties of its elements resemble each other. Similarity: Lewis refers to Armstrong: similarity between universals 1978b⁽⁶⁾,§16.2,§21, 1989b⁽⁷⁾: §5.111997 §4.1). Ultimately LewisVs. Naturalness/Lewis/Schwarz: (2001a⁽⁸⁾:§4,§6): proposing test for naturalness, based on similarity between individual things: coordinate system: "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" axis. A property is then the more natural, the more dense and more compact the appropriate region is. Problem: 1. that presupposes gradual similarity and therefore cannot be well used to define gradual naturalness. 2. the pnE come out quite unnatural, because the instances often do not strongly resemble each other. E.g. if a certain mass property is perfect, of course, then all things with this mass build a perfectly natural class, no matter how dissimilar they are today. SchwarzVsLewis: it shows distinctions between natural and less natural properties in different areas, but does not show that the distinction is always the same. Naturalness/SchwarzVsLewis: could also depend on interests and biological expression. And yet, can in various ways the different types of natural - be determined by perfect naturalness. That is not much, because at Lewis all, by definition, by the distribution of p.n.p. is determined. ((s)>Mosaic). Schwarz I 122 Naturalness/SchwarzVsLewis: not reasonable to assume that it was objectively, regardless of how naturally it appears to us. Lewis introduced objective naturalness as a metaphysical basis for qualitative, intrinsic similarity and difference, as some things resemble each other like eggs and others do not. (see above 5.2). Intrinsic Similarity: also qualitative character and duplication: these terms are intended to be our familiar terms by Lewis. SchwarzVsLewis: but if objective naturalness is to explain the distinction of our opinions about similarity, one cannot ask with sense the question whether the distinction serves exactly this. So although there are possible beings (or worlds) whose predicates express relatively unnatural properties and therefore are wrong about natural laws, without being able to discover the error. But we can be sure a priori that we do not belong to them. Problem: the other beings may themselves believe a priori to be sure that their physical predicates are relatively natural. Solution: but they (and not we) were subject to this mistake, provided "natural" means in their mouth the same as with us. ((s) but we also could just believe that they are not subject to error. Respectively, we do not know whether we are "we" or "they"). Schwarz: here is a tension in our concept of natural law (NL): a) on the one hand it is clear that we can recognize them empirically. b) on the other hand they should be objective in a strong sense, regardless of our standards and terms. Problem: Being with other standards can come up with the same empirical data to all other judgments of NL. Schwarz I 134 Event/SchwarzVsLewis: perhaps better: events but as the regions themselves or the things in the regions: then we can distinguish e.g. the flight from the rotation of the ball. Lewis appears to be later also inclined to this. (2004d)⁽⁹⁾. Lewis: E.g. the death of a man who is thrown into a completely empty space is not caused by something that happens in this room, because there is nothing. But when events are classes of RZ regions, an event could also include an empty region. Def Qua thing/Lewis/Schwarz: later theory: “Qua-things” (2003)⁽¹⁰⁾: E.g. „Russell qua Philosoph“: (1986d^(9a),247): classes of counterpieces – versus: LewisVsLewis: (2003)⁽¹⁰⁾ Russell qua Philosoph and Russell qua Politician and Russell are identical. Then the difference in counterfactual contexts is due to the determined by the respective description counterpart relation. These are then intensional contexts. (Similar to 1971⁽¹¹⁾). counterfactual asymmetry/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis' analysis assumes similarity between possible worlds. HorwichVsLewis: (1987⁽¹⁵⁾,172) should explain why he is interested in this baroque dependence. Problem/SchwarzVsLewis: so far, the analysis still delivers incorrect results E.g. causation later by earlier events. Schwarz I 139 Conjunctive events/SchwarzVsLewis: he does not see that the same is true for conjunctive events. Examples A, B, C, D are arbitrary events, so that A caused B and C caused D. If there is an event B&C, which exactly occurs when both B and C happen, then A is the cause of D: without A, B would not have happened, neither B&C. Likewise D would not have happened without B&C. Because causation is transitive, thus any cause causes any effect. Note: according to requirement D would not happen without C, but maybe the next possible world, in which B&C are missing, is one in which C is still taking place? According to Lewis the next possible world should however be one where the lack of cause is completely extinguished. Schwarz: you cannot exclude any conjunctive events safely. E.g. a conversation or e.g. a war is made up of many events and may still be as a whole a cause or effect. Lewis (2000a⁽¹³⁾, 193) even used quite unnatural conjunctions of events in order to avoid objections: E.g. conjunction from the state of brain of a person and a decision of another person. Absence/Lewis/Schwarz: because Lewis finds no harmless entities that are in line as absences, he denies their existence: they are no events, they are nothing at all, since there is nothing relevant. (200a, 195). SchwarzVsLewis: But how does that fit together with the Moore's facts? How can a relationship be instantiated whose referents do not exist?. Moore's facts/Schwarz: E.g. that absences often are causes and effects. Something to deny that only philosopher comes to mind. I 142 Influence/SchwarzVsLewis: Problem: influence of past events by future. Example had I drunk from the cup already half a minute ago, then now a little less tea would be in the cup, and depending on how much tea I had drunk half a minute ago, how warm the tea was then, where I then had put the cup, depending on it the current situation would be a little different. After Lewis' analysis my future tea drinking is therefore a cause of how the tea now stands before me. (? Because Ai and Bi?). Since the drinking incidents are each likely to be similar, the impact is greater. But he is not the cause, in contrast to the moon. Schwarz I 160 Know how/SchwarzVsLewis: it is not entirely correct, that the phenomenal character must be causal effect if the Mary and Zombie pass arguments. For causal efficacy, it is sufficient if Mary would react differently to a phenomenally different experience ((s) >Counterfactual conditional). Dualism/Schwarz: which can be accepted as a dualist. Then you can understand phenomenal properties like fundamental physical properties. That it then (as above Example charge 1 and charge 1 switch roles in possible worlds: is possible that in different possible worlds the phenomenal properties have their roles changed, does not mean that they are causally irrelevant! On the contrary, a particle with exchanged charge would behave differently. Solution: because a possible world, in which the particle has a different charge and this charge plays a different role, is very unlike to our real world! Because there prevail other laws of nature. ((s) is essential here that besides the amended charge also additionally the roles were reversed? See above: >Quidditism). SchwarzVsLewis: this must only accept that differences in fundamental characteristics do not always find themselves in causal differences. More one must not also accept to concede Mary the acquisition of new information. Schwarz I 178 Content/Individuation/Solution/LewisVsStalnaker: (1983b⁽²⁾, 375, Fn2, 1986e⁽³⁾, 34f), a person may sometimes have several different opinion systems! E.g. split brain patients: For an explanation of hand movements to an object which the patient denies to see. Then you can understand arithmetic and logical inference as merging separate conviction fragments. Knowledge/Belief/Necessary truth/Omniscience/SchwarzVsLewis/SchwarzVsFragmentation: Problem: even within Lewis' theory fragmentation is not so easy to get, because the folk psychology does not prefer it. Schwarz I 179 E.g. at inconsequent behavior or lie we do not accept a fragmented system of beliefs. We assume rather that someone changes his beliefs or someone wants to mislead intentionally. E.g. if someone does not make their best move, it must not be the result of fragmentation. One would assume real ignorance contingent truths instead of seeming ignorance of necessary truths. Fragmentation does not help with mathematical truths that must be true in each fragment: Frieda learns nothing new when she finally finds out that 34 is the root of the 1156. That they denied the corresponding proposition previously, was due to a limitation of their cognitive architecture. Knowledge/Schwarz: in whatever way our brain works, whether in the form of cards, records or neural networks - it sometimes requires some extra effort to retrieve the stored information. Omniscience/Vs possible world/Content/VsLewis/Schwarz: the objection of logical omniscience is the most common objection to the modeling mental and linguistic content by possible worlds or possible situations. SchwarzVsVs: here only a problem arises particularly, applicable to all other approaches as well. Schwarz I 186 Value/Moral/Ethics/VsLewis/Schwarz: The biggest disadvantage of his theory: its latent relativism. What people want in circumstances is contingent. There are possible beings who do not want happiness. Many authors have the intuition that value judgments should be more objective. Solution/Lewis: not only we, but all sorts of people should value under ideal conditions the same. E.g. then if anyone approves of slavery, it should be because the matter is not really clear in mind. Moral disagreements would then in principle be always solvable. ((s)>Cognitive deficiency/Wright). LewisVsLewis: that meets our intuitions better, but unfortunately there is no such defined values. People with other dispositions are possible. Analogy with the situation at objective probability (see above 6.5): There is nothing that meets all of our assumptions about real values, but there is something close to that, and that's good enough. (1989b⁽⁷⁾, 90 94). Value/Actual world/Act.wrld./Lewis: it is completely unclear whether there are people in the actual world with completely different value are dispositions. But that does not mean that we could not convince them. Relativism/Values/Morals/Ethics/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis however welcomes a different kind of relativism: desired content can be in perspective. The fate of my neighbor can be more important to me than the fate of a strangers. (1989b⁽¹⁴⁾, 73f). Schwarz I 232 Truthmaker principle/SchwarzVsLewis: here is something rotten, the truth maker principle has a syntax error from the outset: we do not want "the world as it is", as truth-makers, because that is not an explanation, we want to explain how the world makes the truth such as the present makes propositions about the past true. Schwarz I 233 Explanation/Schwarz: should distinguish necessary implication and analysis. For reductive metaphysics necessary implication is of limited interest. SchwarzVsLewis: he overlooks this when he wrote: "A supervenience thesis is in the broader sense reductionist". (1983,29). Elsewhere he sees the difference: E.g. LewisVsArmstrong: this has an unusual concept of analysis: for him it is not looking for definitions, but for truth-makers ". 1. David Lewis [1979a]: “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se”. Philosophical Review, 88: 513–543. 2. David Lewis [1983b]: “Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation”. Philosophical Review, 92: 3–32. 3. David Lewis [1986e]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden (Mass.): Blackwell 4. David Lewis [1984b]: “Putnam’s Paradox”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377 5. David Lewis [1983c]: “New Work for a Theory of Universals”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377. 6. David M. Armstrong [1978b]: Universals and Scientific Realism II: A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 7. David M. Armstrong [1989b]: Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press 8. David Lewis [2001a]: “Redefining ‘Intrinsic’ ”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63: 381-398 9. David Lewis [2004d]: “Void and Object”. In [Collins et al. 2004], 277–291 9a. David Lewis [1986d]: “Events”. In [Lewis 1986f]: 241–269 10. David Lewis [2003]: “Things qua Truthmakers”. Mit einem Postscript von David Lewis und Gideon Rosen. In Hallvard Lillehammer und Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (Hg.), Real Metaphysics: Essays in Honour of D.H. Mellor, London: Routledge, 25–38. 11. David Lewis [1971]: “Counterparts of Persons and Their Bodies”. Journal of Philosophy, 68: 203–211. 12. David Lewis [1987]: “The Punishment that Leaves Something to Chance”. Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 12: 81–97. 13. David Lewis [2000a]: “Causation as Influence”. Journal of Philosophy, 97: 182–197. Gekürzte Fassung von [Lewis 2004a] 14. David Lewis [1989b]: “Dispositional Theories of Value”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 63: 113-137. 15. Paul Horwich [1987]: Asymmetries in Time. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press	Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005
Mach, E.	Field Vs Mach, E.	III 48 Newtonian Spacetime/Field: here the lack of a full Euclidean structure shows in two ways: 1) you cannot objectively compare spatial distance with time distance. And that although such a comparison could be arbitrarily defined: E.g. by saying that the spatial distance between two points should be equal to a temporal distance if the temporal distance is the same as for a certain uniform movement in the Bureau of Standards. ((s) Third aspect: to set speed in relation to temporal and spatial distance). 2) (In order to explain this, we need to come to the subject of the absolute rest point (absolute rest): In the Newtonian system, this only makes sense in relation to an arbitrarily chosen coordinate system. Absolute Rest/Rest Point/Newton/Field: He himself considered them as possible in his system. And also as necessary in order to define absolute acceleration. He did that in his famous bucket experiment. Absolute Acceleration/Newton: ....Thesis: absolute acceleration is needed to explain the laws of mechanics. Absolute acceleration, in turn, can only be explained by absolute speed, and if that is supposed to make sense, we need an absolute rest point (absolute speed = 0). FieldVsNewton: ...that does not work at all, because the theory itself cannot single out a reference system (rest frame) for the determination of absolute speed. MachVsNewton/Solution: a change of physical theory: to one that does not use absolute acceleration. III 49 FieldVsMach: it would be better to avoid changing theory. That means we treat absolute acceleration without assuming that it is defined by numerical speed. Absolute Acceleration/FieldVsNewton: we can have it without an absolute rest point. PlatonismVsNewton/Absolute Acceleration/Earman/Friedman/Field: Also a Platonic construction with 4-dimensional tensors is known and popular among science philosophers of today. FieldVsTensors: these are again arbitrary. (see below).	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
Mundy, B.	Field Vs Mundy, B.	I 199 Representation Theorem/VsRelationism: Relationism cannot take over the representation theorems from substantivalism either, because these depend on structural regularities (regularity of spacetime structure). And this regularity of spacetime is lost in relationalism. ((s) because there should be no empty sp.t., the sp.t. itself is bound to (empirically irregularly) occurring matter). Wrong Solution/Mundy: (1983): has proven a "representation theorem" which is not based on structural regularities. But that does not help heavy duty Platonism, because it generates numerical functors only from other numerical functors. That means he does not take predicates which put matter particles (point particles) in relation to each other, but a functor k: that refers particles to real numbers. E.g. For every three-point particle a real number that represents the inner product of two vectors which have one of these points as a common starting point, and the other two as endpoints. From this he extracts (several) coordinate systems, so that we have a representation theorem of species. FieldVsMundy: this does not serve the purposes for which representation theorems were originally developed, because it does not depart from a non-numeric base. Mundy: also sees that the R should not use any functions of point particles to real numbers as the basis for its formulation of physics. Therefore, he reformulates the equation: old: k(p,q,r) = a (where a is a real number) new: ka(p,q,r) so that we have an uncountable, infinite set of 3-digit space relations, one for every real number. (Mundy, 1983, p 212, 223.) FieldVsMundy: this does not solve any problem, because it’s only a notational trick. ((s) notation, orthography, paraphrasing, renaming >Rorty: "redescription" not a mere renaming, because description (language) necessitates stronger revision than replacing individual predicates with others. Potentially different number of digits). FieldVsMundy: if you really wanted to interpreted the ka’s as 3-digit spatial relations, the a’s would have to be considered as unquantifiable indices. Then we would have uncountably many primitive predicates, and thus no theory would be possible. Index/Quantification/(s): it is impossible to quantify on indices. Indices are not quantifiable. Mundy: of course, does not treat the indices as unquantifiable, but he re-writes them: k(p,q,r) = a if he wants to quantify on a. FieldVsMundy: but a quantifiable index is simply a variable that appears in a different place. And with the re-naming we do not change the fact that we have a 4-digit relation of which one term is a real number. Conclusion: With that you cannot take advantage of the difference between moderate Platonism and heavy duty Platonism.	Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989
Tradition	Searle Vs Tradition	II 28 Belief/conviction/SearleVsTradition: it is simply not a kind of image! It is simply a representation, that means it has a propositional content, which determines the fulfillment of conditions and a psychological mode, which defines the orientation. II 49 SearleVsTradition: Convictions and desires are not the basic intentional states. One can also ashamed of his desire or his convictions. II 160 Tradition: one never has a causation experience. SearleVsTradition: one not only often has causation experience, but every perception or action experience is indeed just such causation experience! SearleVsHume: he looked at a wrong spot, he looked for strength. II 190 Example skiing: traditional view: first: word on world causation direction. You follow the instruction to put the weight on the downhill ski. II 191 This changes with increasing dexterity. The instructions appear unconscious, but still as a representation. To make conscious will become a hindrance in the future as with the centipede. SearleVsTradition: the rules are not internalized, but they are less important! They are not unconsciously "hardwired" but they become ingrained. II 192 They might be realized as nerves and simply make the rules unnecessary. The rules can retreat into the background. The beginner is inflexible, the advanced flexible. This makes the causal role of representation superfluous! The advanced does not follow the rules better, he skis differently! The body takes command and the driver's intentionality is concentrated on the winning of the race. II 192/193 Background/Searle: is not on the periphery of intentionality, but pervades the whole network of intentional states. II 228 Name/subject/direct speech/quote/tradition/Searle: E.g. the sheriff spoke the words "Mr. Howard is an honest man. " II 231 According to the traditional view, the direct speech here includes no words! (But names.) II 232 SearleVsTradition: Of course we can talk about words with words. Also here no new names are created, the syntactic position often allows not even the setting up of a name. II 233 E.g. Gerald said he would Henry. (Ungrammatical). II 246 de dicto/intensional/SearleVsTradition: E.g. "Reagan is such that Bush thinks he is the president." Searle: the mistake was to conclude from the intensionality of de dicto reports to the intensionality of the reported states themselves. But from the presence of two different types of reports simply does not follow that there are two different kinds of states. III 165 Realism/tradition/Searle: the old dispute between realism and idealism was about the existence of matter or of objects in space and time. The traditional realism dealt with the question of how the world really is. Realism/SearleVsTradition: this is a profound misunderstanding! Realism is not a thesis about how the world actually is. We could be totally in error about how the world is in its details, and the realism could be still true! Def realism/Searle: realism has the view that there is a way of being of things that is logically independent of all human representations. It does not say how things are, but only that there is a mode of being of things. (Things are here not only material objects). V 176 Predicate/meaning/Searle: but is the meaning of the predicate expression a linguistic or non-linguistic entity? Searle: it is a linguistic entity in an ordinary sense. Can the existence of a non-linguistic entity follow from the existence of a linguistic entity? Existence/language/universals/SearleVsTradition: but the claim that any non-linguistic entities exist, can never constitute a tautology. IV 155 Background/Searle: what means "use" of background assumptions? The meaning concept shall perform certain tasks for us. Now the same object can at different times be understood relatively to various coordinate system of background assumptions without being ambiguous. ((s) It is unambiguous in the respective situation). IV 156 SearleVsTradition: here it is also not about the distinction performance/competence. IV 157 There is no sharp distinction between the competence of a speaker and his knowledge of the world.	Searle I John R. Searle The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 German Edition: Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996 Searle II John R. Searle Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind, Cambridge/MA 1983 German Edition: Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991 Searle III John R. Searle The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995 German Edition: Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997 Searle IV John R. Searle Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1979 German Edition: Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982 Searle V John R. Searle Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983 Searle VII John R. Searle Behauptungen und Abweichungen In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle VIII John R. Searle Chomskys Revolution in der Linguistik In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle IX John R. Searle "Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005

The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.

Disputed term/author/ism	Author	Entry	Reference
Nominalism	Field, Hartry	III 1 Def nominalism / Field: the thesis that there are no abstract entities. So in particular, no numbers, functions, quantities. They simply are not there. Field ditto. III 47 Nominalism / Physics / Field: a nominalist thesis must be "attractive", it must be "intrinsically pure" and not rely on arbitrary length units, coordinate systems, etc.	Link to abbreviations/authors