Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

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


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Dependence Bigelow I 312
Functional dependence/Counterfactual conditional/Lewis/Bigelow/Pargetter: For example, an icon on the screen obeys the movements of a joystick. We formulate this with counterfactual conditionals. Counterfactual dependence: is expressed by a series of counterfactual conditionals:
p1 would> be q1
p2 would be> q2 ...
pi would be > would be qi
E.g. Joystick: the four directions p1 - p4. There can also be an infinite series of alternatives. E.g. Acceleration.
Logical form:
Px would be > would be q f(x)
Natural laws/Bigelow/Pargetter. Many are in reality equations, which together with initial conditions contain series of counterfactual conditionals expressing counterfactual dependence.
>Counterfactual conditional, >Counterfactual dependency, >Natural Laws, >Equations.
I 313
Counterfactual conditionals/natural laws/Bigelow/Pargetter: the counterfactual conditionals are thus in a connection with the laws of nature. It may be that e.g. the joystick does not work properly. Nobody would come to the idea to say that the movement of the icon is legally related to the stick. This only happens when the device is in good condition. Solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: With the establishment of the series of counterfactual conditionals, we set up only conditions for laws.
Counterfactual dependence/Bigelow/Pargetter: (series of counterfactual conditionals) provides indirect information about laws. And thus provide information about causes. And ultimately, why explanations.
---
I 314
E.g. p1 would be > would be q1
p2 would be > would be q2
p3 would be > would be q3
p4 would be > would be q4
Let p3 be true and q3 true. Then we can say that q3 is true because p3 is true. The icon moves in this direction because the stick has been moved in this direction.
>Causality, >Causal explanation.
In the context of the alternatives we can also say q3 is true instead of q1, q2, or q4.
Why Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: E.g. a priest asked a bank robber why he was robbing banks - "Because there is the money".
Explanations: often serve to exclude alternatives.
Objectivity/explanation/objective/Bigelow/Pargetter: what is objective is whether counterfactual conditionals are true or false in a given row (expressing the counterfactual dependence).
>Why-Questions.
Why-Questions/Context/Counterfactual dependence/Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: thus, the counterfactual dependence also takes into account the context dependency in the case of why explanations.
>Context dependency.
I 315
Why explanation: but is limited to prominent possibilities. Counterfactual Conditional/Bigelow/Pargetter: restrict the laws
Laws: restrict the causes.
>Cause, >Effect.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Modalities Simons I 253
Mereology/modal/modality/Simons: we need modality in the mereology. We also need a definition of "necessary part" and a modal definition of "sum" (because it is less intuitive than "organism"). Dependence: a) ontological dependence: an object cannot exist without another existing,
b) functional dependence: functional dependence consists between characteristics of objects which form a whole.
>Functional dependence, >Ontological dependence, >Dependence.
I 264
Modal Part/Simons: e.g. a class of counterparts might be considered a whole with different modal components. >Counterparts.
Modal Parts: modal parts are possible in various possible worlds.
>Parts, >Cross world identity.
I 268
Modality/metaphysics/metaphysical/nature/necessity/Simons: a given atom could not have other particles. They are essential parts (components). On the other hand: the given particles could have belonged to another atom. It is not essential for them to be part of this atom, i.e. to be "given".
>Essential parts.

Simons I
P. Simons
Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987

Ontological Dependence Esfeld I 16f
Holism/Esfeld: generic ontological dependence is not existence, but with respect to having some determined characteristics, a thing is ontological generical dependent on that fact that other things exists. The parts have their characteristic properties only as a whole (ontologically or metaphysically (Esfeld pro)). Generic: further specification is available: e.g. nothing has just a mass (without quantity), all physical quantities are generic. The opposite is determined. >Dependence, >Existence, >Relations.
I 36
Ontological dependence is necessary instead of mere functional dependence. Isolation does not destroy holism but properties that work in isolation as well, are not holistic properties. No functional definition is sufficient. Instead: there is ontological dependence. >Ontology, >Holism, >Properties, >Isolation.

Es I
M. Esfeld
Holismus Frankfurt/M 2002



No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.