The permutation argument 1.0 (changing arrangement argument)

Find the right structure and content for your course and set up a syllabus

登録は簡単!. 無料です
または 登録 あなたのEメールアドレスで登録
The permutation argument 1.0 (changing arrangement argument) により Mind Map: The permutation argument 1.0 (changing arrangement argument)

1. 5.The argument

1.1. First pass: Nothing can fix the intension/extension of our term. Maybe a bit strong...

1.2. Putnam does think that cat refers to cats, Truism can only be preserved when metaphysical demands are removed.

1.3. Extremely sophisticated kind of dialectic

1.4. Only when entire sentences are rationally acceptable do they fix using operational and theoretical constraints. Putnam grants that entire sentences are in fact true but nevertheless claims that this doesn't determine their intensions.

2. 4.Operational & Theoretical constraints

2.1. Operational constraint is a way of connecting meaning of sentence to evidence. e.g. Dog with waggly tail and charge with moving voltmeter.

2.2. Theoretical constraints are other features that govern the rational acceptance of a sentence (Newton met them very well) epistemic virtues: Simple, Beauty

2.3. Only apply to entire sentences that enunciate a full thought

3. 3.Intensions

3.1. This is the notion that there is more to meaning than extension

3.2. An intension is a function from worlds to extensions. Intensions of terms take a possible world scenario and give you an extension.

4. 1.Permutation explained

4.1. Earlier model is called the Model Theoretic Argument based on a branch of mathematics. Permutations rely on a certain way of doing semantics in terms of possible worlds.

4.2. This attacks metaphysical realism, which is: Independence principle (IP): Mind independent objects Correspondence principle (COP): Getting MIO's to fit your representations in the form of true beliefs Cartesian principle (CAP): There can be no higher standards humanly possible, but even then it can still be false

5. 2.Possible world semantics & Extension

5.1. Used to secure the permutation argument

5.2. Extensions are a more scientific way of using the term reference. E.g Felix is a cat. Felix, the predicate, falls under the extension of the general term, is a cat. This works for the correspondence principle as we can show that picking out objects that have certain relations to others fall under the same groups.

5.3. Item 3

5.4. There are coextensive terms that are not synonymous, i.e. terms that have all the same thing fall under them. e.g. featherless biped and human

5.5. Possible worlds notion needs to be introduced. Imagine a world with featherless chickens. Bringing in more possible objects allows us to define in more detail the different meaning of terms.

6. Truth conditions

6.1. '[No] view which only fixes the truth-values of whole sentences can fix reference, even if it specifies truth-values for sentences in every possible world,' (RTH 33)

7. 7.Permutations

7.1. Attacks the MR thesis and undermines COP

7.2. Proposition: A cat is on a mat Divide into 3 classes. Focus on (a) and (b) world. This is called permuting the extension and intension. Give new terms (mat* and cat*)

7.3. Intensions will yield the same truth-conditions

8. 8. Things to think about

8.1. The inverted spectrum of the phil of mind. All colours have been flipped but we would never be able to know

8.2. We defeat the sceptic via the connection that ideal theory cannot be false

8.3. The big question for this is: Are the metaphysical realists right?

8.4. The idea that your words have a particular intension is wrong, The operational/theoretical constraints model is wrong