David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
J. Of Experimental and Theoretical AI 12 (2):377-382 (2000)
Years ago, when I was an undergraduate math major at the University of Wyoming, I came across an interesting book in our library. It was a book of counterexamples t o propositions in real analysis (the mathematics of the real numbers). Mathematicians work more or less like the rest of us. They consider propositions. If one seems to them to be plausibly true, then they set about to prove it, to establish the proposition as a theorem. Instead o f setting out to prove propositions, the psychologists, neuroscientists, and other empirical types among us, set out to show that a proposition is supported by the data, and that it is the best such proposition so supported. The philosophers among us, when they are not causing trouble by arguing that AI is a dead end or that cognitive science can get along without representations, work pretty much like the mathematicians: we set out to prove certain propositions true on the basis of logic, first principles, plausible assumptions, and others' data. But, back to the book of real analysis counterexamples. If some mathematician happened t o think that some proposition about continuity, say, was plausibly true, he or she would then set out to prove it. If the proposition was in fact not a theorem, then a lot of precious time would be wasted trying to prove it. Wouldn't it be great to have a book that listed plausibly true propositions that were in fact not true, and listed with each such proposition a counterexample to it? Of course it would.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hans van Ditmarsch, Wiebe van der Hoek & Petar Iliev (2011). Everything is Knowable – How to Get to Know Whether a Proposition is True. Theoria 78 (2):93-114.
Michael J. Cholbi (2003). Contingency and Divine Knowledge in Ockham. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):81-91.
Kevin C. Klement, Russell-Myhill Paradox. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
A. Hoffmann (2012). Are Propositions Sets of Possible Worlds? Analysis 72 (3):449-455.
Cian Dorr (2005). Propositions and Counterpart Theory. Analysis 65 (3):210–218.
Ferenc Huoranszki (2002). Fate, Freedom and Contingency. Acta Analytica 17 (1):79-102.
Marian David (2005). On 'Truth is Good'. Philosophical Books 46 (4):292-301.
Alexander R. Pruss (2003). Post's Critiques of Omniscience and of Talk of All True Propositions. Philo 6 (1):49-58.
Aviv Hoffmann (2003). A Puzzle About Truth and Singular Propositions. Mind 112 (448):635-651.
Philip L. Peterson (2000). Fact-, Proposition-, and Event-Individuation. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000:29-36.
Nikolaj Jang Pedersen (2008). From Metaphysical Pluralism to Alethic Pluralism? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:201-208.
Vittorio Morato (2006). Propositions and Necessary Existence. Grazer Philosophische Studien 72 (1):211-231.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads62 ( #20,272 of 1,089,099 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #30,976 of 1,089,099 )
How can I increase my downloads?