Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stability | Developmental Psychology | Upton I 4 Stability/Change/developmental psychology/Upton: Theorists who believe in stability in development often argue from a nativist stance, emphasising the role of heredity for the development of psychological characteristics. We inherit aspects of our personality, for example, in much the same way that we inherit eye colour. From this perspective we cannot change our psychological self, only learn to control it. >Nativism. Empiricism: From an empiricist viewpoint, stability in psychological characteristics stems from the impact of early experiences that cannot be overcome. An individual is shy not because of a genetic predisposition, but because during early experiences of interacting with others they encountered considerable stress, leading them to avoid social interaction. >Periods of development/psychological theories, >Psychoanalysis/psychological theories. Upton I 5 VsNativism/VsNativism: The alternative viewpoint is that there is potential for change throughout the life span. Later experiences are believed to be able to influence development just as early ones do. The majority of contemporary theorists accept this perspective. For a discussion: Baltes (2003)(1) argues that, while adults are able to change, their capacity to do so is less than that of a child and diminishes over time. On the other hand, Kagan (2003)(2) argues that personality traits such as shyness have a genetic basis; yet he also provides evidence that even these inherited traits can be subject to change over time. 1. Baltes, P. B. (2003). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: selection, optimization and compensation as foundation for developmental theory, in: Staudinger U. M. and Lindenberger, U. (eds) Understanding Human Development. Boston: Kluwer. 2. Kagan, J (2003) Biology, context and developmental enquiry. Annual Review of Psychology, 54: 1–23. |
Upton I Penney Upton Developmental Psychology 2011 |
| Stability | Neurobiology | Corr I 329 Stability/Neurobiology/behavioral genetics: Behaviour genetic analysis has shown that the two meta-traits have genetic origins (Jang et al. 2006)(1), and evidence is accumulating that Stability (>Personality traits/neurobiology) is related to serotonin, whereas Plasticity may be related to dopamine (DeYoung 2006(2); DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2002;(3) Yamagata, Suzuki, Ando et al. 2006)(4). Serotonine and dopamine act as diffuse neuromodulators affecting a wide array of brain systems, and their broad influence is consistent with a role in the broadest level of personality structure. Corr I 320 The discovery of Stability as a meta-trait encompassing the shared variance of Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness may allow a parsimonious description of the broad effects of serotonin on personality, which largely reconciles the various hypotheses regarding serotonin. >Five-factor Model/Neurobiology. 1. Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Ando, J., Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Riemann, R. and Spinath, F. 2006. Behavioural genetics of the higher-order factors of the Big Five, Personality and Individual Differences 41: 261–72 2. DeYoung, C. G. 2006. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91: 1138–51 3. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B. and Higgins, D. M. 2002. Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences 33: 533–52 4. Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Livesley, W. J. and Jang, K. L. 2006. Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 987–98 Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, „ Personality neuroscience: explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carnap, R. | Quine Vs Carnap, R. | Carnap VII 151 Intensionalist Thesis of Pragmatics/CarnapVsQuine: determining the intention is an empirical hypothesis that can be checked by observing the linguistic habits. Extensionalist Thesis/QuineVsCarnap: determining the intention is ultimately a matter of taste, the linguist is free, because it can not be verified. But then the question of truth and falsehood does not arise. Quine: the completed lexicon is ex pede Herculem i.e. we risk an error if we start at the bottom. But we can gain an advantage from it! However, if in the case of the lexicon we delay a definition of synonymy no problem arises as nothing for lexicographers that would be true or false. Carnap VII 154 Intention/Carnap: essential task: to find out which variations of a given specimen in different ways (for example, size, shape, color) are allowed in the area of the predicate. Intention: can be defined as the range of the predicate. QuineVsCarnap: might answer that the man on the street would be unwilling to say anything about non-existent objects. Carnap VII 155 CarnapVsQuine: the tests concerning the intentions are independent of existential questions. The man on the street is very well able to understand questions related to assumed counterfactual situations. Lanz I 271 QuineVsCarnap: criticism of the distinction analytic/synthetic. This distinction was important for logical empiricism, because it allows an understanding of philosophy that assigns philosophy an independent task which is clearly distinct from that of empirical sciences! Quine undermines this assumption: the lot of concepts is not independent of their use in empirical theories! I 272 There are no conceptual truths that would be immune to the transformation of such theories. Philosophy and sciences are on one and the same continuum. --- Newen I 123 Quine/Newen: is like Carnap in the spirit of empiricism, but has modified it radically. I 124 Thought/Frege: irreducible. Thought/QuineVsFrege: seeks a reductive explanation of sentence content (like Carnap). Base/QuineVsCarnap: not individual sense data, but objectively describable stimuli. Sentence Meaning/Quine/Newen: is determined by two quantities: 1) the amount of stimuli leading to approval 2) the amount of the stimuli leading to rejection. This only applies for occasion sentences. I125 Def Cognitively Equivalent/Quine/Newen: = same meaning: two sentences if they trigger the same behavior of consent or reflection. For the entire language: if it applies to all speakers. QuineVsCarnap: sentences take precedence over words. Quine I 73 QuineVsCarnap: difference to Carnap's empirical semantics: Carnap proposes to explore meaning by asking the subject whether they would apply it under different, previously described circumstances. Advantage: opposites of terms such as "Goblin" and "Unicorn" are preserved, even if the world falls short of examples that could be so sharply distinct from each other in such a way. I 74 Quine: the stimulus meaning has the same advantage, because there are stimulus patterns that would cause consent to the question "unicorn?", but not for "Goblin?" QuineVsCarnap: Carnap's approach presumes decisions about which descriptions of imaginary states are permissible. So, e.g. "Unicorn", would be undesired in descriptions to explore the meaning of "Unicorn". Difference: Quine restricts the use of unfulfilled conditionals to the researchers, Carnap makes his researcher himself submit such judgments to the informant for evaluation. Stimulus meaning can be determined already in the first stages of radical translation, where Carnap's questionnaire is not even available yet. Quine: theory has primarily to do with records, Carnap: to do with terms. I 466 For a long time, Carnap advocated the view that the real problems of philosophy are linguistic ones. Pragmatic questions about our language behavior, not about objects. Why should this not apply to theoretical questions in general? I 467 This goes hand in hand with the analyticity concept. (§ 14) In the end, the theoretical sentences generally can only be justified pragmatically. QuineVsCarnap: How can Carnap draw a line there and claim that this does not apply for certain areas? However, we note that there is a transition from statements about objects to statements about words, for example, when we skip classes when moving from questions about the existence of unicorns to questions about the existence of points and kilometers. Through the much-used method of "semantic ascent": the transition from statements about kilometers to statements about "kilometers". From content-related to formal speech. It is the transition from speech in certain terms to talk about these concepts. It is precisely the transition of which Carnap said that it undressed philosophical questions of their deceptive appearance and made them step forward in their true form. QuineVsCarnap: this part, however, I do not accept. The semantic ascent of which I speak can be used anywhere. (Carnap: "content-related" can also be called "material".) Ex If it came down to it, the sentence "In Tasmania there are Wombats" could be paraphrased like this: ""Wombat" applies to some creatures in Tasmania." IV 404 Carnap/(Logical Particles): ("The logical structure of the world"): Thesis: it is possible in principle to reduce all concepts to the immediately given. QuineVsCarnap: that is too reductionist: Disposition concepts such as "soluble" cannot be defined like this. (Even later recognized by Carnap himself). IV 416 QuineVsCarnap: Why all these inventive reconstructions? Ultimately sense stimuli are the only thing we have. We have to determine how the image of the world is constructed from them. Why not be content with psychology? V 28 Disposition/Quine: Problem: the dependence on certain ceteris paribus clauses. Potential disturbances must be eliminated. Solution: some authors: (like Chomsky) retreat to probabilities. V 29 Carnap: instead of probability: reduction sentences seen as idealizations to which corrections are made. Carnap conceives these corrections as re-definitions, i.e. they lead to analytic sentences that are true from the meaning. QuineVsCarnap: I make no distinction between analytical and other sentences. V 30 Reflexes/Holt/Quine: those that are conditioned later are not fundamentally different from innate ones. They consist of nerve paths with reduced resistance. Quine: therefore, one can conceive disposition as this path itself! ((s) I.e. pratically physical. Precisely as physical state.) Disposition/GoodmanVsQuine: a disposition expression is a change to an eventually mechanical description and therefore circular. The mechanistic terms will ultimately be implicit disposition terms. QuineVsGoodman/QuineVsCarnap: I, unlike the two, am satisfied with a theoretical vocabulary, of which some fundamental physical predicates were initially learned with the help of dipositioned speech. (Heuristic role). VII (b) 40 But his work is still only a fragment of the whole program. His space-time-point quadruples presume a world with few movements ("laziest world"). Principle of least movement is to be the guide for the construction of a world from experience. QuineVsCarnap: he seemed not to notice that his treatment of physical objects lacked in reduction! The quadruples maximize and minimize certain overall features and with increasing experience the truth values are revised in the same sense. X 127 Logical Truth/Carnap: Thesis: only the language and not the structure of the world makes them true. Truth/Logical Truth/QuineVsCarnap: is not a purely linguistic matter. Logic/QuineVsCarnap: the two breakdowns that we have just seen are similar in form and effect: 1) The logic is true because of the language only insofar as it is trivially true because of everything. 2) The logic is inseparable from the translation only insofar as all evident is inseparable from the translation. Logic/Language/Quine: the semantic ascent seems to speak for linguistic theory. QuineVs: the predicate "true" (T predicate) already exists and helps precisely to separate logic from language by pointing to the world. Logic: While talks a lot about language, it is geared towards the world and not towards language. This is accomplished by the T predicate. X 133 We learn logic by learning language. VsCarnap: but that does not differentiate logic from other areas of everyday knowledge! XI 99 QuineVsProtocol Sentence/QuineVsCarnap/Lauener: describes private, non-public autopsychological experiences. XI 129 Intention/Carnap/Lauener: (Meaning and Necessity): attempts to introduce intentions without thereby entangling himself in metaphysics. QuineVsCarnap: you cannot take advantage of a theory without paying the ontological bill. Therefore, the assumed objects must be values of the variable. Another way would be to say that certain predicates must be true for the theory to be true. But that means that it is the objects that must be the values of variables. To every value applies a predicate or its negation. ((s) >continuous determination). XI 130 Conversely, everything to which a predicate applies is a value of a variable. Because a predicate is an open sentence. XI 138 Ontology/Carnap/Lauener: Ex "x is a thing": at a higher level of universality existence assumptions no longer refer to the world, but only to the choice of a suitable linguistic framework. QuineVsCarnap: this is merely a gradual difference. XI 142 Ontology/Carnap/Lauener: (temporarily represented): Thesis: philosophical questions are always questions about the use of language. Semantic Ascent/QuineVsCarnap: it must not be misused for evasive ontological maneuvers. XI 150 Thing/Object/Carnap/Lauener: to accept things only means choosing a certain language. It does not mean believing in these things. XI 151 CarnapVsQuine: his existence criterion (being the value of a bound variable) has no deeper meaning in as far as it only expresses a linguistic choice. QuineVsCarnap: language and theory cannot be separated like that. Science is the continuation of our daily practice. XII 69 QuineVsCarnap/QuineVsUniversal Words: it is not said what exactly is the feature for the scope. Ontological Relativity/QuineVsCarnap: cannot be enlightened by internal/external questions, universal words or universal predicates. It has nothing to do with universal predicates. The question about an absolute ontology is pointless. The fact that they make sense in terms of a framework is not because the background theory has a wider scope. Absolute Ontology/Quine: what makes it pointless, is not its universality but its circularity. Ex "What is an F?" can only be answered by recourse to another term: "An F is a G." XII 89 Epistemology/Scope/Validity/QuineVsCarnap: Hume's problem (general statements + statements about the future are uncertain if understood as about sense data or sensations) is still unsolved. Carnap/Quine: his structures would have allowed translating all sentences about the world in sense data or observation terms plus logic and set theory. XII 90 QuineVsCarnap: the mere fact that a sentence is expressed with logical, set-theoretical and observational terms does not mean that it could be proved by means of logic and set theory from observation statements. ((s) means of expression are not evidence. (inside/outside, plain, circles).) Epistemology/Quine: Important argument: wanting to equip the truths about nature with the full authority of direct experience is just as much sentenced to failure as the reduction of truths in mathematics to the potential intelligibility of elementary logic. XII 91 Carnap/QuineVsCarnap: If Carnap had successfully carried out its construction, how could he have known if it is the right one? The question would have been empty! Any one would have appeared satisfactory if only it had represented the physical contents properly. This is the rational reconstruction. Def Rational Reconstruction/Carnap/Quine: construction of physicalistic statements from observation terms, logical and set-theoretical concepts. QuineVsCarnap: Problem: if that had been successful, there would have been many such constructions and each would have appeared equally satisfactory,if only it had represented the physicalistic statements properly. But each would have been a great achievement. XII 92 QuineVsCarnap: unfortunately, the "structure" provides no reduction qua translation that would make the physicalist concepts redundant. It would not even do that if his sketch was elaborated. Problem: the point where Carnap explains how points in physical space and time are attributed sensory qualities. But that does not provide a key for the translation of scientific sentences into such that are formed of logic, set-theoretical and observation concepts. CarnapVsCarnap: later: ("Testability and Meaning", 1936): reduction propositions instead of definitions. XII 94 Empiricism/QuineVsCarnap: empiricism has 1) abandoned the attempt to deduce the truth about nature from sensory experience. With that he has made a substantial concession. 2) He has abandoned rational reconstruction, i.e. attempt to translate these truths in observation terms and logical mathematical tools. QuineVsPeirce: Suppose we meant that the meaning of a statement consists in the difference that its truth makes for the experience. Could we then not formulate in a page-long sentence in observation language any differences that might account for the truth, and could we then not see this as a translation? Problem: this description could be infinitely long, but it could also be trapped in an infinitely long axiomatization. Important argument: thus the empiricist abandons the hope that the empirical meaning of typical statements about reality could be expressed. Quine: the problem is not too high a complexity for a finite axiomatization, but holism: XII 95 Meaning/QuineVsPeirce: what normally has experience implications ("difference in the experience") only refers to theories as a whole, not to individual experience sentences. QuineVsCarnap: also the "structure" would have to be one in which the texts, into which the logical mathematical observation terms are to be translated, are entire theories and not just terms or short sentences. Rational Reconstruction/QuineVsCarnap: would be a strange "translation": it would translate the whole (whole theories), but not the parts! Instead of "translation" we should just speak of observation bases of theories. pro Peirce: we can very well call this the meaning of empirical theories. ((s) Assigning whole theories to observations). |
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 Ca I R. Carnap Die alte und die neue Logik In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Ca II R. Carnap Philosophie als logische Syntax In Philosophie im 20.Jahrhundert, Bd II, A. Hügli/P.Lübcke (Hg) Reinbek 1993 Ca IV R. Carnap Mein Weg in die Philosophie Stuttgart 1992 Ca IX Rudolf Carnap Wahrheit und Bewährung. Actes du Congrès International de Philosophie Scientifique fasc. 4, Induction et Probabilité, Paris, 1936 In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Ca VI R. Carnap Der Logische Aufbau der Welt Hamburg 1998 CA VII = PiS R. Carnap Sinn und Synonymität in natürlichen Sprachen In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Ca VIII (= PiS) R. Carnap Über einige Begriffe der Pragmatik In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Lanz I Peter Lanz Vom Begriff des Geistes zur Neurophilosophie In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 New II Albert Newen Analytische Philosophie zur Einführung Hamburg 2005 Newen I Albert Newen Markus Schrenk Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie Darmstadt 2008 |
| Duhem, P. | McDowell Vs Duhem, P. | I 188 Theory/Quine/Duhem: the contestability through experience (Ex here is a black swan) can not be distributed among the sets of the theory. McDowell: This is actually an argument for the indeterminacy of meaning! McDowellVsQuine: but the argument is only tenable if our language of experience is distinguishable from the language of theory, so that the relevant experience does not already speak the language of theory. I 189 Language of theory/language of observation/McDowellVsQuine: now it may be that both are in fact distinguishable. Then, the observational significance of a single theoretical sentence would be indeterminate. But from that we could derive a general indeterminacy of meaning! If we try that, we face the third party dogma. Then we are facing a borderline case of the separation of languages: we push the whole meaning into theory and don't allow experience to speak any language at all. Then, of course, a rational relationship is missing. However, we need this rational relationship for Duhem's argument. It can only be of a local character. By paving our way through the third dogma, we lop Duhem's thoughts to the right size. |
McDowell I John McDowell Mind and World, Cambridge/MA 1996 German Edition: Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001 McDowell II John McDowell "Truth Conditions, Bivalence and Verificationism" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell |
| Equilibrium Theory | Luhmann Vs Equilibrium Theory | AU Kass 6 LuhmannVsEquilibrium Theories: they have the concept of disturbance (even as a basic concept) in two directions, probability, artificiality of the equilibrium (17th century example a few French soldiers more and the Prussians already have to arm.) Further development: dynamic equilibrium, alternative realizations in different areas, establishment on a new level. Progress, functional equivalents. Actually, equilibrium is a metaphor. Equilibrium as a condition of stability. Structure preservation is tied to the equilibrium term. Today questionable: 1. From the natural sciences: it is the imbalances which are stable! 2. Also in the economy! A precise vote is too unstable! Socialist systems keep goods scarce, capitalist systems keep buyers scarce. And that is stable! Luhmann: but that becomes questionable if one uses equilibrium and imbalance as it were as a system term! Furthermore, disturbance has a different meaning today. Disturbance/ST/Luhmann: can best be understood as follows: the system has certain (very limited) structures and possibilities. A disturbance brings one or the other as current into the system. This can initiate a search or identification process. For example, fire or just burnt potatoes? However, the range is adjusted, so it is not assumed that the petrol has run out. The search can be handled operationally in the system itself or communicatively. Information processing process instead of equilibrium process. Disturbance: is only a disturbance within the system, not in the environment! |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 |
| Gould, St. J. | Dennett Vs Gould, St. J. | I 371 Arch Spandrels/DennettVsGould: Gould: Thesis: the spandrels are so refined that the whole cathedral stands for their sake. GouldVs "pervasive adaptation" DennettVsGould: not so clever and not so often. I 388 Dennett: false juxtaposition of adaptionism with architectural necessity. Minimum surface limits expensive mosaic stones. Exaptation/Gould: thumb of the panda not really a thumb, but it does a good job! " Exaptation/Dennett: according to orthodox Darwinism any adjustment is some form of exaptation. This is trivial, because no function is preserved forever. Strand: GouldVsGradualism: "punctuated equilibrium". Jumps possible Long periods of stability, periods of abrupt changes. But no theory of macromutation. Broken Balance/DennettVsGould: Figure I 392: it depends on how the diagram is drawn: with sloping or horizontal branches (standing and jumping). DennettVsGould: it is known that changes can only be evaluated retrospectively in evolution. Nothing that happens during the sideways movement distinguishes an anagenetical from a kladogenetical process. I 405 DennettVsGould: but the fact that a currently existing group will be the founder of a new species, cannot be important for the intensity of a development. I 409 DennettVsGould: Gould would certainly not regard such a local imperceptible (but fast) transition from mouse to elephant (a few throusand years) as a violation of gradualism, but then he has no evidence in the form of fossil finds for his counter-position to gradualism. I 423 Has Neo-Darwinism ever claimed that evolution is proceeding at a constant speed? DennettVsGould: actually presumes (wrongly) that the majority of the contest of evolution was a lottery! His only clue: he cannot imagine why some of the amazingly bizarre creatures (Burgess) should be better designed than others. I 424 Chance/Evidence/Dennett: E.g. a geyser suddenly erupts on average every 65 minutes. The form of the suddenness is no evidence of the randomness. I 426 Cambrian explosion/DennettVsGould: Equally, the suddenness here is no evidence for the randomness. Evolution/DennettVsGould: he is quite right: the paths are continuous, unbroken lineages (to us), but they are not lines of global progress. So what? There are local improvements. Münch III 379 Adaptionism/Dennett: the more complex the condition, the less likely appears a rational reason. But the truth of a non-adaptionist story does not require the falsehood of all adaptationist stories. We should accept Pangloss’ assumption.(1) 1. Daniel Dennett, “Intentional Systems in Cognitive Ethology: The ‘Panglossian Paradigm’ defended”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (1983), 343-355 |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 Mü III D. Münch (Hrsg.) Kognitionswissenschaft Frankfurt 1992 |
| Küng, H. | Mackie Vs Küng, H. | Stegmüller IV 507 Religion/Küng: (Existiert Gott?, Küng, H. 1978): Küng tends to classify arguments as "modern" or "unmodern". MackieVsKüng: enormous erudition, at the same time confused. Too strong an emphasis on "modernity". IV 508 So it only depends on whether an argument is right or wrong. Küng: Thesis: "...after the difficult walk through the history of modern times, a clear, convinced "yes" answered by critical reason can be given as an answer to the question "Does God exist?" But the question is, what does this "yes" refer to? To the God of traditional theism, or to a substitute God? Küng: Thesis: both the naively anthropomorphic and the enlightened-deistic conception of God are obsolete. God is neither a supernatural being in the clouds, nor an extraterrestrial being in the metaphysical sky. Rather he is in this world and this world is God. God is the infinite in the finite, the absolute in the relative. That which works constantly, that which has the possibility as an absolute of becoming history. Küng seems to agree with the tradition of a negative theology: God is not to be understood by any concept, even the concept of being does not override him, because he is not an existing being. The God of the Bible is not a person like a human, but a God who establishes personality, so he cannot be apersonal. Thus one can also accept the God of the Bible as a God with a human face. IV 509 MackieVsKüng: 1. He obviously takes advantage of the fact that he tries to have everything at the same time: this can be seen in his remarks about miracles: these are all that the human is "surprised" about. Mackie: 2. If this was all, miracles would in no way support any kind of supernaturalism or theism! 3. Retreat to such an indefinite and unclear concept of God that it no longer provides any starting point at all to critically discuss the question of existence. God/Existence/Proof of God/Küng: Thesis: Argument for the existence of God: the danger of nihilism. The question is not whether we can infer from our knowledge about the world, consciousness and morality further specific theistic conclusions. Rather, modern thought is threatened by nihilism. Nihilism/Küng: (classical representative: Nietzsche): Vs three classical transcendentals: there is 1. no unity 2. no truth 3. no goodness. IV 510 Küng: admits that nihilism is not only possible, but irrefutable. Question: Can it be overcome? Truth/Rationalism/MackieVsKüng: he refers to a wrongly understood concept of critical rationality in Popper (KüngVsPopper). Küng believes that he renounces any critical examination of the foundations of our knowledge. IV 510/511 ad 2: the assumption that there is order in the world, i.e. regularity, which does not necessarily have to be causal determination, makes sense in two ways: 1. as a regulative principle, 2. as a far-reaching hypothesis. (Küng seems to understand above all the latter by it.) ad. 3. no goodness: here (the one quoted by Küng) Mackie has already given sufficient answers before. Values/Küng: after all, we have to assume something like objective value from which standards can be derived. MackieVsKüng: this is clearly wrong: every value is a human and social product. IV 512 Atheism/Küng: also atheists and agnostics can strive for humanity and morality. Belief/God/Küng: but the basic trust in identity, meaningfulness, and value of reality is ultimately only justified if the reality itself, to which the human also belongs, does not remain groundless, unfounded and aimless. MackieVsKüng: no, that is not clearly visible. It is just wrong. The basic trust is reasonable in itself for the reasons mentioned! And exactly the same applies to the development of values. Whereby Küng accepts this indirect proof as the only proof of God at all, i.e. he does not want any demonstrative proof. IV 513 MackieVsKüng: This seems to amount to the assertion that in the execution of belief it proves to be true. Küng constantly fluctuates between a reference to a pleasant and purely subjective security and the reference to the ontological argument explicitly rejected by himself before. Nihilism/Küng: the first appearance of senselessness results from the fact that reality is not God, the second appearance that the human is not God. MackieVsKüng: also in these two respects the God hypothesis is not better than naturalism! IV 514 Explanation/MackieVsKüng: with him everything boils down to God being the one who somehow gives reason, stability and purpose to reality. But this is no explanation at all: one cannot explain a being by what it does. A "somehow acting". Nihilism/MackieVsKüng: ironically, he himself collected the material to show how nihilism can be met on a purely human level (without the God hypothesis). Namely by what Küng calls "basic trust" (>James, see above). Mackie: this trust is already reasonable out of itself. |
Macki I J. L. Mackie Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong 1977 Carnap V W. Stegmüller Rudolf Carnap und der Wiener Kreis In Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie Bd I, München 1987 St I W. Stegmüller Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie Bd I Stuttgart 1989 St II W. Stegmüller Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie Bd 2 Stuttgart 1987 St III W. Stegmüller Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie Bd 3 Stuttgart 1987 St IV W. Stegmüller Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie Bd 4 Stuttgart 1989 |
| Leibniz, G.W. | Wessel Vs Leibniz, G.W. | I 221 Def Identity/Leibniz: match in all properties (traced back to Aristotle). Identity/WesselVsLeibniz: inappropriate because it suggests searching for two objects to compare and verify properties. In modern mathematics, the problem is circumvented by specifying a fixed range with precisely defined predicates. In an attempt to apply Leibniz's definition to empiricism, an attempt was made to establish the identity relation directly ontologically, without seeing its origin in the properties of language. Wrong approach: in the relative temporal stability of objects: Dilemma: from a = a results not much more than "Socrates is Socrates". Problem: one must then demand that Socrates must have had the same qualities at all times of his life. In fact, some authors have linked the negation of the possibility of change to it. I 228 Def Diversity/Leibniz: "which is not the same or where the substitution sometimes does not apply". Identity/Leibniz: substitutability salva veritate. x = y = def AP(P(x) ↔ P(y)). (s) All properties of one are also those of the other and vice versa). WesselVsLeibniz: the corresponding bisubjunction (= without def) is existentially loaded and therefore not logically true. Identity/PeirceVsLeibniz: "his principle is completely nonsense. No doubt all things are different from each other, but there is no logical necessity for that". Identity/Peirce: x = y ↔ AP(P(x) u P(y) v ~P(x) u ~P(y)) WesselVsPeirce: this is also existentially charged! Identity/Indistinguishability/Wessel: in literature there is a distinction between the principle of the identity of the indistinguishable. (x)(y)AP((P(x) ↔ P(y)) > x = y) (e) and the principle of indistinguishability of the identical (also substitution principle): (x)(y)(x = y > AP(P(x) ↔ P(y))) (n) Identity/Vagueness/WesselVsLeibniz: in vagueness the Leibniz's principle of the identity of the indistinguishable does not apply, since in non-traditional predication theory the formulae P(x) ↔ P(y) and -i P(x) ↔ -i P(y) are not equivalent. Additional demand (Wessel 1987; 1988): the same predicates must also be denied! strict identity: x = y =def AP((P(x) ↔ P(y)) u (-i P(x) ↔ -i P(y))). WesselVsWessel: but this cannot be maintained, because the corresponding bisubjunction is existentially loaded! I 229 In term theory, we will define identity with the help of the term relation. |
Wessel I H. Wessel Logik Berlin 1999 |
| Omniscience | Brendel Vs Omniscience | I 159 Omniscience/semantisch/Brendel: ist der Begriff überhaupt sinnvoll in einer semantisch offenen Sprache? ((s) Hierarchie, Sprachstufen). VsOmniscience/Grim/Plantinga/Brendel: (Patrick Grim 1983, 1984, 1988, 1991, Gödel. Unvollständigkeitssatz, Cantor: Unmöglichkeit der Menge aller Mengen/Plantinga/Grim 1993): (analog zur Lügner-Paradoxie) These: es gibt kein allwissendes Subjekt. (PlantingaVsGrim). BrendelVsGrim: Problem: das beruht auf einem Wissensbegriff, der von einer universellen semantisch geschlossenen Sprache ausgeht. Lösung/Brendel: durch Annahme einer semantisch offenen Sprache (Hierarchie). Paradoxien/BrendelVsGrim: die Paradoxien können daher nicht als Argumente gegen die Möglichkeit der Allwissenheit angeführt werden. Def Omniscience*/variant/Grim/Brendel: s ist allwissend gdw. für jede Aussage A gilt: A ist genau dann wahr, wenn s glaubt, dass A und glaubt, dass A gdw. s weiß, dass A. (Grim 1983, 266ff). I 160 Omniscience/GrimVsOmniscience/Grim/Brendel: (analog zum Lügner): eine selbstbezügliche Aussage: soll zeigen, dass es kein allwissendes Subjekt geben kann: (1) G glaubt, dass (1) falsch ist. („G“: sei ein allwissendes Subjekt) Problem. dann kann G weder unter der Annahme, dass (1) wahr ist, noch, dass (1) falsch ist, im Sinne der variant Omniscience* allwissend sein. Without truth value/neither true nor false/Grim: selbst wenn (1) als weder wahr noch falsch angenommen wird, ist es ein Argument VsOmniscience: denn dann muss G wissen, dass (1) weder wahr noch falsch ist, also kann G nicht glauben, dass (1) falsch ist. (1) muss daher falsch sein. Wenn (1) jedoch falsch ist, dann glaubt G nicht, dass (1) falsch ist. Dann gibt es eine Wahrheit, die G nicht glaubt. Wissen/metasprachlich/BrendelVsGrim: wenn wir "Wissen" metasprachlich auffassen, spielt es zunächst eine Rolle, ob "Wissen" als Operator oder als Prädikat aufgefaßt wird. a) Operator: dann kann (1) nicht als echte selbstbezügliche Aussage formalisiert werden, I 161 da der Operator die Aussage nicht mit einem Anführungsnamen erwähnen kann. Logische Form: (+) GlaubtG ("A" ist falsch) A Erwähnung/Gebrauch/Pointe/Brendel: A wird zwar durch "ist falsch" erwähnt und steht daher in AZ, die Aussage „A ist falsch“ wird jedoch als Argument des Glaubensoperators nicht erwähnt, sondern gebraucht. I 162 Belief instability/Burge/Kroon/Brendel: (Burge 1984, Sorensen 1987, Kroon 1993): epistemische Paradoxie der Belief instability als Problem rationaler Entscheidung: VsOmniscience: diese Paradoxie soll die Existenz eines allwissenden Subjekts ad absurdum führen: es wird eine Aussage konstruiert, zu der kein epistemisches Subjekt eine rational vertretbare Position beziehen kann. I 164 VsOmniscience/Brendel: die Unmöglichkeit eines allwissenden Subjekts lässt sich aber auch durch die Unabgeschlossenheit einer unendlichen Sprachstufenhierarchie beweisen. I 165 Wissen/Brendel: alles was ein Subjekt wissen kann, ist Wissen auf einer bestimmten Sprachstufe. |
Bre I E. Brendel Wahrheit und Wissen Paderborn 1999 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | McDowell Vs Quine, W.V.O. | I 162 McDowellVsQuine: contradiction: If experience is not part of the order of justification, it can not be exceeded by worldviews. But that is what "conceptual sovereignty" requires. The whole thesis of the indeterminacy of translation would become meeaningless if we can not talk about how someone comes to a worldview but only about causal acquired dispositions. On the other hand, if we were to abandon the "Tribunal," we would lose the right to speak of a more or less reasonable worldview. I 184 McDowellVsQuine: if we reject the Third dogma there are fatal consequences for Quine: for his argument he needs to maintain the duality endogenous/exogenous, which DavidsonVsQuine also rejects. I 185 McDowell: the "empirical significance" cannot be a proper meaning anyway, since - as a counterpart to "conceptual sovereignty" - it cannot have anything to do with reasons and justification. McDowellVsQuine: but that does not indicate that meaning is generally underdetermined! To that end one would have to show that we have an indelible leeway when we look for a kind of understanding that leads us outside the field of "empirical significance." An understanding, that shows how life phenomena are structured in the order of the justification, the space of reason. That can not be learned from Quine. I 186 Scheme/McDowellVsQuine: the idea of a structure that must be found in every understandable conceptual scheme must not have the effect that one imagines the scheme as one side of the dualism of world and schema. I 188 DavidsonVsQuine: If "empirical meaning" cannot be divided sentence by sentence among individual sentences, this does not mean that rational accountability towards experience cannot be dvided sentence by sentence among individual sentences. But then experience must really be regarded as a tribunal. Theory/Quine/Duhem: the contestability through experience (Ex a black swan) can not be distributed among the sentences of the theory. McDowell: This is actually an argument for the indeterminacy of meaning. McDowellVsQuine: but the argument is only tenable if our experiential language is distinct from the theoretical language, so that the relevant experience does not already speak the language of theory. I 189 Theoretical Language/observational language/McDowellVsQuine: now it may be that both are actually distinguishable. Then, the observational significance of a single theoretical sentence would be indeterminate. But we could not derive a general indeterminacy of meaning from that! If we try, we are confronted with the third dogma. Esfeld I 63 Semantic holism/Quine: is conceived by him as a Type B (top down). Conceptual content is mainly the system of beliefs of each person as a whole. No two people ever have the same belief system. VsQuine: Problem: 1. How can two people share a belief at all if they do not share the whole system? 2. Confirmation: how can expereince confirm propositions or beliefs at all? how should we understand the metaphor of the "tribunal of experience"? Experience: if it is conceptual, it consists in beliefs or statements. Then it is not even outside the system of beliefs. So it can not be confronted with the system! Experience: On the other hand if it were non-conceptual, it is unclear how it can exercise a rational control over a system of beliefs. Quine: "The core idea of the third dogma." "Tribunal." nothing more than excitation of receptors! Experience in this sense may cause beliefs. (DavidsonVs). Esfeld: but how then can experience be a reason? I 64 (S.McDowell I 157ff). |
McDowell I John McDowell Mind and World, Cambridge/MA 1996 German Edition: Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001 McDowell II John McDowell "Truth Conditions, Bivalence and Verificationism" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Es I M. Esfeld Holismus Frankfurt/M 2002 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of an allied field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vs Gradualism. | Gould, St. J. | Dennett I 330 GouldVsgradualism: thesis: "punctuated equilibrium". Development in reality often erratic. Long periods of stability, periods of intense changes. But no theory of macro-mutation. |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| |||