Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Dougherty,T/Rysiew,P, Laurence Bonjour and Shaughan Lavine

expand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


80 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 1. Philosophy
Philosophy is a priori if it is anything [Bonjour]
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 3. Pure Reason
Perceiving necessary connections is the essence of reasoning [Bonjour]
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 6. Coherence
Coherence can't be validated by appeal to coherence [Bonjour]
For any given area, there seem to be a huge number of possible coherent systems of beliefs [Bonjour]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 1. Set Theory
Second-order set theory just adds a version of Replacement that quantifies over functions [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 2. Mechanics of Set Theory / b. Terminology of ST
An 'upper bound' is the greatest member of a subset; there may be several of these, so there is a 'least' one [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 3. Types of Set / a. Types of set
Collections of things can't be too big, but collections by a rule seem unlimited in size [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 3. Types of Set / d. Infinite Sets
Those who reject infinite collections also want to reject the Axiom of Choice [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / g. Axiom of Powers VI
The Power Set is just the collection of functions from one collection to another [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / h. Axiom of Replacement VII
Replacement was immediately accepted, despite having very few implications [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / i. Axiom of Foundation VIII
Foundation says descending chains are of finite length, blocking circularity, or ungrounded sets [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / j. Axiom of Choice IX
Pure collections of things obey Choice, but collections defined by a rule may not [Lavine]
The controversy was not about the Axiom of Choice, but about functions as arbitrary, or given by rules [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 5. Conceptions of Set / c. Logical sets
The 'logical' notion of class has some kind of definition or rule to characterise the class [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 5. Conceptions of Set / e. Iterative sets
The iterative conception of set wasn't suggested until 1947 [Lavine]
The iterative conception needs the Axiom of Infinity, to show how far we can iterate [Lavine]
The iterative conception doesn't unify the axioms, and has had little impact on mathematical proofs [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 5. Conceptions of Set / f. Limitation of Size
Limitation of Size: if it's the same size as a set, it's a set; it uses Replacement [Lavine]
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 6. Ordering in Sets
A collection is 'well-ordered' if there is a least element, and all of its successors can be identified [Lavine]
5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 7. Second-Order Logic
Second-order logic presupposes a set of relations already fixed by the first-order domain [Lavine]
5. Theory of Logic / D. Assumptions for Logic / 2. Excluded Middle
Mathematical proof by contradiction needs the law of excluded middle [Lavine]
5. Theory of Logic / L. Paradox / 4. Paradoxes in Logic / e. The Lottery paradox
The Lottery Paradox says each ticket is likely to lose, so there probably won't be a winner [Bonjour, by PG]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 1. Mathematics
Mathematics is nowadays (thanks to set theory) regarded as the study of structure, not of quantity [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / b. Types of number
Every rational number, unlike every natural number, is divisible by some other number [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / g. Real numbers
For the real numbers to form a set, we need the Continuum Hypothesis to be true [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / h. Reals from Cauchy
Cauchy gave a necessary condition for the convergence of a sequence [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / i. Reals from cuts
The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 4. Using Numbers / c. Counting procedure
Counting results in well-ordering, and well-ordering makes counting possible [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / a. The Infinite
The theory of infinity must rest on our inability to distinguish between very large sizes [Lavine]
The infinite is extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / c. Potential infinite
The intuitionist endorses only the potential infinite [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / f. Uncountable infinities
'Aleph-0' is cardinality of the naturals, 'aleph-1' the next cardinal, 'aleph-ω' the ω-th cardinal [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / h. Ordinal infinity
Ordinals are basic to Cantor's transfinite, to count the sets [Lavine]
Paradox: the class of all ordinals is well-ordered, so must have an ordinal as type - giving a bigger ordinal [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / i. Cardinal infinity
Paradox: there is no largest cardinal, but the class of everything seems to be the largest [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 6. Mathematics as Set Theory / a. Mathematics is set theory
Set theory will found all of mathematics - except for the notion of proof [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 1. Mathematical Platonism / b. Against mathematical platonism
Modern mathematics works up to isomorphism, and doesn't care what things 'really are' [Lavine]
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 10. Constructivism / b. Intuitionism
Intuitionism rejects set-theory to found mathematics [Lavine]
10. Modality / B. Possibility / 1. Possibility
The concept of possibility is prior to that of necessity [Bonjour]
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 1. Knowledge
The concept of knowledge is so confused that it is best avoided [Bonjour]
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 2. Understanding
It is nonsense that understanding does not involve knowledge; to understand, you must know [Dougherty/Rysiew]
To grasp understanding, we should be more explicit about what needs to be known [Dougherty/Rysiew]
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 7. Knowledge First
Rather than knowledge, our epistemic aim may be mere true belief, or else understanding and wisdom [Dougherty/Rysiew]
12. Knowledge Sources / A. A Priori Knowledge / 2. Self-Evidence
It is hard to give the concept of 'self-evident' a clear and defensible characterization [Bonjour]
12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 8. Adverbial Theory
The adverbial account will still be needed when a mind apprehends its sense-data [Bonjour]
12. Knowledge Sources / C. Rationalism / 1. Rationalism
Our rules of thought can only be judged by pure rational insight [Bonjour]
Moderate rationalists believe in fallible a priori justification [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 1. Justification / a. Justification issues
Don't confuse justified belief with justified believers [Dougherty/Rysiew]
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 1. Justification / b. Need for justification
If knowledge is unanalysable, that makes justification more important [Dougherty/Rysiew]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / a. Foundationalism
Externalist theories of knowledge are one species of foundationalism [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / b. Basic beliefs
The big problem for foundationalism is to explain how basic beliefs are possible [Bonjour]
Conscious states have built-in awareness of content, so we know if a conceptual description of it is correct [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / d. Rational foundations
A priori justification requires understanding but no experience [Bonjour]
You can't explain away a priori justification as analyticity, and you can't totally give it up [Bonjour]
A priori justification can vary in degree [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / e. Pro-foundations
The main argument for foundationalism is that all other theories involve a regress leading to scepticism [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / f. Foundationalism critique
The induction problem blocks any attempted proof of physical statements [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / a. Coherence as justification
A coherence theory of justification can combine with a correspondence theory of truth [Bonjour]
There will always be a vast number of equally coherent but rival systems [Bonjour]
Empirical coherence must attribute reliability to spontaneous experience [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / b. Pro-coherentism
The best explanation of coherent observations is they are caused by and correspond to reality [Bonjour]
A well written novel cannot possibly match a real belief system for coherence [Bonjour]
The objection that a negated system is equally coherent assume that coherence is consistency [Bonjour]
A coherent system can be justified with initial beliefs lacking all credibility [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / c. Coherentism critique
My incoherent beliefs about art should not undermine my very coherent beliefs about physics [Bonjour]
Coherence seems to justify empirical beliefs about externals when there is no external input [Bonjour]
Coherentists must give a reason why coherent justification is likely to lead to the truth [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 1. External Justification
Extreme externalism says no more justification is required than the truth of the belief [Bonjour]
Externalist theories of justification don't require believers to have reasons for their beliefs [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 3. Reliabilism / a. Reliable knowledge
Reliabilists disagree over whether some further requirement is needed to produce knowledge [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 3. Reliabilism / b. Anti-reliabilism
External reliability is not enough, if the internal state of the believer is known to be irrational [Bonjour]
If the reliable facts producing a belief are unknown to me, my belief is not rational or responsible [Bonjour]
13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 10. Anti External Justification
Even if there is no obvious irrationality, it may be irrational to base knowledge entirely on external criteria [Bonjour]
Externalism means we have no reason to believe, which is strong scepticism [Bonjour]
14. Science / A. Basis of Science / 5. Anomalies
Anomalies challenge the claim that the basic explanations are actually basic [Bonjour]
14. Science / C. Induction / 2. Aims of Induction
Induction must go beyond the evidence, in order to explain why the evidence occurred [Bonjour]
15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 1. Consciousness / f. Higher-order thought
If neither the first-level nor the second-level is itself conscious, there seems to be no consciousness present [Bonjour]
18. Thought / C. Content / 1. Content
All thought represents either properties or indexicals [Bonjour]
19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 2. Semantics
Entailment is modelled in formal semantics as set inclusion (where 'mammals' contains 'cats') [Dougherty/Rysiew]
19. Language / F. Communication / 6. Interpreting Language / b. Indeterminate translation
Indeterminacy of translation is actually indeterminacy of meaning and belief [Bonjour]