62 ideas
| 11147 | Naturalistic philosophers oppose analysis, preferring explanation to a priori intuition [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 9641 | Definitions should be replaceable by primitives, and should not be creative [Brown,JR] |
| 9634 | Set theory says that natural numbers are an actual infinity (to accommodate their powerset) [Brown,JR] |
| 9615 | Nowadays conditions are only defined on existing sets [Brown,JR] |
| 9613 | Naïve set theory assumed that there is a set for every condition [Brown,JR] |
| 9617 | The 'iterative' view says sets start with the empty set and build up [Brown,JR] |
| 9642 | A flock of birds is not a set, because a set cannot go anywhere [Brown,JR] |
| 9605 | If a proposition is false, then its negation is true [Brown,JR] |
| 9649 | Axioms are either self-evident, or stipulations, or fallible attempts [Brown,JR] |
| 9638 | Berry's Paradox finds a contradiction in the naming of huge numbers [Brown,JR] |
| 9604 | Mathematics is the only place where we are sure we are right [Brown,JR] |
| 9622 | 'There are two apples' can be expressed logically, with no mention of numbers [Brown,JR] |
| 9648 | π is a 'transcendental' number, because it is not the solution of an equation [Brown,JR] |
| 9621 | Mathematics represents the world through structurally similar models. [Brown,JR] |
| 9646 | There is no limit to how many ways something can be proved in mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9647 | Computers played an essential role in proving the four-colour theorem of maps [Brown,JR] |
| 9643 | Set theory may represent all of mathematics, without actually being mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9644 | When graphs are defined set-theoretically, that won't cover unlabelled graphs [Brown,JR] |
| 9625 | To see a structure in something, we must already have the idea of the structure [Brown,JR] |
| 9628 | Sets seem basic to mathematics, but they don't suit structuralism [Brown,JR] |
| 9606 | The irrationality of root-2 was achieved by intellect, not experience [Brown,JR] |
| 9610 | Numbers are not abstracted from particulars, because each number is a particular [Brown,JR] |
| 9612 | There is an infinity of mathematical objects, so they can't be physical [Brown,JR] |
| 9620 | Empiricists base numbers on objects, Platonists base them on properties [Brown,JR] |
| 9630 | The most brilliant formalist was Hilbert [Brown,JR] |
| 9629 | For nomalists there are no numbers, only numerals [Brown,JR] |
| 9639 | Does some mathematics depend entirely on notation? [Brown,JR] |
| 9608 | There are no constructions for many highly desirable results in mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9645 | Constructivists say p has no value, if the value depends on Goldbach's Conjecture [Brown,JR] |
| 9619 | David's 'Napoleon' is about something concrete and something abstract [Brown,JR] |
| 19542 | It is nonsense that understanding does not involve knowledge; to understand, you must know [Dougherty/Rysiew] |
| 19543 | To grasp understanding, we should be more explicit about what needs to be known [Dougherty/Rysiew] |
| 19541 | Rather than knowledge, our epistemic aim may be mere true belief, or else understanding and wisdom [Dougherty/Rysiew] |
| 11141 | Modern empiricism tends to emphasise psychological connections, not semantic relations [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 19540 | Don't confuse justified belief with justified believers [Dougherty/Rysiew] |
| 19539 | If knowledge is unanalysable, that makes justification more important [Dougherty/Rysiew] |
| 11142 | Body-type seems to affect a mind's cognition and conceptual scheme [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11121 | Language of thought has subject/predicate form and includes logical devices [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11120 | Concepts are either representations, or abilities, or Fregean senses [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11122 | A computer may have propositional attitudes without representations [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11124 | Do mental representations just lead to a vicious regress of explanations [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11123 | Maybe the concept CAT is just the ability to discriminate and infer about cats [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11125 | The abilities view cannot explain the productivity of thought, or mental processes [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11140 | Concept-structure explains typicality, categories, development, reference and composition [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11128 | Classically, concepts give necessary and sufficient conditions for falling under them [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11129 | The classical theory explains acquisition, categorization and reference [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11130 | Typicality challenges the classical view; we see better fruit-prototypes in apples than in plums [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11131 | It may be that our concepts (such as 'knowledge') have no definitional structure [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11134 | People don't just categorise by apparent similarities [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11136 | Many complex concepts obviously have no prototype [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11133 | Prototype theory categorises by computing the number of shared constituents [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11135 | Complex concepts have emergent properties not in the ingredient prototypes [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11132 | The prototype theory is probabilistic, picking something out if it has sufficient of the properties [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11137 | The theory theory of concepts says they are parts of theories, defined by their roles [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11138 | The theory theory is holistic, so how can people have identical concepts? [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11139 | Maybe concepts have no structure, and determined by relations to the world, not to other concepts [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 11146 | People can formulate new concepts which are only named later [Margolis/Laurence] |
| 9611 | 'Abstract' nowadays means outside space and time, not concrete, not physical [Brown,JR] |
| 9609 | The older sense of 'abstract' is where 'redness' or 'group' is abstracted from particulars [Brown,JR] |
| 9640 | A term can have not only a sense and a reference, but also a 'computational role' [Brown,JR] |
| 19538 | Entailment is modelled in formal semantics as set inclusion (where 'mammals' contains 'cats') [Dougherty/Rysiew] |
| 9635 | Given atomism at one end, and a finite universe at the other, there are no physical infinities [Brown,JR] |