green numbers give full details.     |    back to list of philosophers     |     expand these ideas

Ideas of J Baggini / PS Fosl, by Text

[British, fl. 2003, Baggini is the editor of 'Philosophy Now']

2003 The Philosopher's Toolkit
§1.01 p.5 4582 Basic beliefs are self-evident, or sensual, or intuitive, or revealed, or guaranteed
§1.03 p.9 4583 How can an argument be good induction, but poor deduction?
§1.03 p.10 4584 The problem of induction is how to justify our belief in the uniformity of nature
§1.06 p.17 4629 Consistency is the cornerstone of rationality
§1.09 p.26 4631 In ideal circumstances, an axiom should be such that no rational agent could possibly object to its use
§1.09 p.26 4632 'Natural' systems of deduction are based on normal rational practice, rather than on axioms
§1.12 p.37 4633 You cannot rationally deny the principle of non-contradiction, because all reasoning requires it
§2.01 p.38 4634 Abduction aims at simplicity, testability, coherence and comprehensiveness
§2.03 p.44 4635 Dialectic aims at unified truth, unlike analysis, which divides into parts
§3.01 p.66 4637 To see if an explanation is the best, it is necessary to investigate the alternative explanations
§3.03 p.71 4638 The principle of bivalence distorts reality, as when claiming that a person is or is not 'thin'
§3.16 p.100 4639 Leibniz's Law is about the properties of objects; the Identity of Indiscernibles is about perception of objects
§3.17 p.103 4640 If identity is based on 'true of X' instead of 'property of X' we get the Masked Man fallacy ('I know X but not Y') [PG]
§3.28 p.128 4643 The Principle of Sufficient Reason does not presuppose that all explanations will be causal explanations
§3.29 p.131 4644 A proposition such as 'some swans are purple' cannot be falsified, only verified
§4.01 p.134 4645 'A priori' does not concern how you learn a proposition, but how you show whether it is true or false
§4.01 p.135 4646 Is 'events have causes' analytic a priori, synthetic a posteriori, or synthetic a priori?
§4.17 p.171 4647 'I have the same car as you' is fine; 'I have the same fiancée as you' is not so good