Difference and Necessity: Dispositionalism, Deleuze, and the Finite Genesis of Transfinite Truths

Difference and Necessity: Dispositionalism, Deleuze, and the Finite Genesis of Transfinite Truth

On Philosophical Intuitions

I will argue that the scientific investigation of philosophical intuition (\u27experimental philosophy\u27) is of philosophical interest. I will defend the significance of experimental philosophy against two important types of objection. I will term the first objection \u27eliminativism\u27 about intuitions: roughly, it is the claim that philosophical methodology does not in fact rely on intuition, and thus experimental philosophy\u27s investigation is ill-conceived—in the words of one such opponent, \u27a big mistake.\u27 I will then consider a second objection, the \u27expertise\u27 defence. The expertise defence argues that the expert intuitions of professional philosophers are distinct, and to be preferred to those of the \u27folk.\u27 Against the eliminativists, I will argue that an ineliminable mental component remains that can be subject of fruitful empirical investigation. Against the expertise defence I will argue that, at least in the context of philosophy of language, expertise is itself a potential source of bias. Since expertise is domain-specific, however, a general rebuttal will not be given. I will conclude that experimental philosophy has much to contribute

Semantics and the stratification of explanation in cognitive science

This work is concerned with a pervasive problem in Cognitive Science which I have called the "stratificational" approach. I argue that the division into "levels of explanation" that runs as a constant theme through much work in Cognitive Science and in particular natural language semantics, is in direct conflict with neuroscientific evidence. I claim it is also in conflict with a right understanding of the philosophical notion of "evidence". The neuroscientific work is linked with the philosophical problem to provide a critique of concrete cases of research within the natural language semantics community. More recent neuroscientifically aware research is examined and it is demonstrated that it suffers similar problems due to the same deep running assumptions as those which effect traditional formalist theory. The contribution of this thesis is thought to be that of a demonstration of the essential nature and indeed the ubiquity of the basic assumptions in the field. Also, a new link is forged between the concerns of the formalists and certain seemingly more abstract philosophical work. This link enables us to see how much philosophical problems infect research into cognition and language. It is argued that practical research in Cognitive Science simply cannot be seen to be independent of the philosophical basis of the entire subject. The resulting picture of Cognitive Science and its place is outlined and explored with special emphasis on what I have called the "Principle of Semantic Indistinguishabliity" which says that the contribution of what can be broadly termed "environment" is epitemologically opaque to our cognition. The importance of this principle is discussed.The purpose of this work is to draw out a fundamental thread of reasoning and methodology that underlies most traditional work, and some not so traditional work, in Cognitive Science. It will be argued that this line of reasoning is at odds with the implications of modern neuroscience and cannot base a reasonable claim to "explain" human cognition. The picture I shall identify is that which I shall call "stratified". This, in general, is an attempt at explanation that divides into "levels of explanation", each with its own concepts that are said to be essential to the explanation of a phenomenon. There are specific and pragmatic manifestations of this, I discuss these in Chapter 3 and 7 in particular. There are also more abstract expressions of the same tendency which I examine mainly in Chapter 6. One of the principle tasks is to demonstrate the links between the assumptions of the more abstract formulations of this approach and th eir pragmatic instantiations in work in Cognitive Science. This allows it to be made clear that certain methodological problems are ubiquitous within the field and are not simply a result of the particular pragmatics of a particular research area.In Cognitive Science as a whole, it is generally appreciated today that there are problems to do with integration of traditional formal systems and the evolutionary and biological aspects of human cognition. One aim of this work is exactly to give an argument, supported from work in the brain sciences, that a certain methodology - particularly that enshrined within formal systems in language semantics - is strongly denied its evidential basis as a result of certain empirical considerations. It is also denied much of its basis as a result of the incongruity between the original motivations of logical formalism and the use to which this formalism is put today. The conclusion of this is that Cognitive Science's role in certain areas is severely limited and it crucially relies on an amount of empirical brain research in places thought usually to be completely separate from the "low-level" evidence from neuroscience. Part of my thesis is that stratified systems and particularly systems of formal logic within linguistics and semantics, cannot possibly be independent in the way imagined. There is also exploration of a general point regarding the character of the relation between strata in a stratified theory. There is, I shall argue, an irresolvable tension between the desire to have separate strata which are both independent but related. We shall see this both in concrete terms in the discussion of Fodor and in the abstract in the discussion of McDowell.George Lakoffhas expressed agreement with this particular premise: " ... linguistic results ... indicate that human reason uses some of the same mechanisms involved in perception and ... human reason can be seen as growing out of perceptual and motor mechanisms."1If this is correct, then I think that there are enormous implications for Cognitive Science in its practise of semantics since the mechanisms of motor and perceptual systems impose radical constraints when applied in the area of semantics.Given this, my aim is to demonstrate that certain seemingly theoryindependent areas of research in Cognitive Science such as linguistics and natural language semantics are actually infected with damaging assumptions from certain misguided philosophical positions. The idea that we can simply model things in Cognitive Science and wait for someone else to sort out the theoretical structure into which all of the models will fit is not tenable. I shall demonstrate this in several concrete cases and couple this with a critique from neuroscience which is crucially related to a more philosophical critique of fundamental assumptions. The structure of the work is as follows. Firstly, I give an overview of foundational issues in Cognitive Science by discussing central works. Then, I introduce the main problems in concrete form by way of an examination of certain approaches to inference in formal semantics. Chapter 4 expands on this in an analysis of the notion of "compositionality" with reference to the "stratificational" approach I find apparent in traditional work in Cognitive Science and the assumptions it disguises. Chapter 5 introduces the themes from neuroscience and the relations they have to the philosophical critique in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, I demonstrate that the assumptions I have identified are present even in work motivated by a desire to leave behind the formalist program. I explain why this is the case and the implications this has for a correct view of "evidence" in Cognitive Science. At this point, I deal with pertinent objections to my view stemming from the parts of the discipline I have mentioned. Chapter 8 condenses the problem and shows the fundamentals of the whole problem in relief, suggesting what all of the preceding means for Cognitive Science

Inessential Features, Ineliminable Features, and Modal Logics for Model Theoretic Syntax

While monadic second-order logic (MSO) has played a prominent role in model theoretic syntax, modal logics have been used in this context since its inception. When comparing propositional dynamic logic (PDL) to MSO over trees, Kracht (1997) noted that there are tree languages that can be defined in MSO that can only be defined in PDL by adding new features whose distribution is predictable. He named such features “inessential features”. We show that Kracht’s observation can be extended to other modal logics of trees in two ways. First, we demonstrate that for each stronger modal logic, there exists a tree language that can only be defined in a weaker modal logic with inessential features. Second, we show that any tree language that can be defined in a stronger modal logic, but not in some weaker modal logic, can be defined with inessential features. Additionally, we consider Kracht’s definition of inessential features more closely. It turns out that there are features whose distribution can be predicted, but who fail to be inessential in Kracht’s sense. We will look at ways to modify his definition

Form without formalism

The systematisation of deductive inference can yield an account of the structure of sentences (propositions, thoughts) involved in such inference. In mainstream contemporary analytic philosophy, the idea of "logical form" is linked, explicitly or implicitly, with the idea of such a systematisation. But this is not the only thing one might mean by "logical form". An enquiry into the structures of thoughts can be motivated by considerations besides inferential behaviour. In this dissertation I sketch an alternative conception according to which the uncovering of the logical structure of discourse proceeds from no single principle but rather piecemeal, from region of discourse to region of discourse. On this conception, the availability of a syntactic characterisation of the valid inference patterns in which a judgment participates is not a necessary condition for the attribution to it of a certain logical form.I argue that Frege's revolutionary application of function-argument analysis to logic plays a central rôle in his equation of the categories in terms of which to ascribe structure to thoughts with the syntactic categories needed for the systematisation of inference. Though the application is plausible in the case of mathematics, I argue that function-argument analysis is ill suited to the analysis of predicative structure generally. As an illustration of this claim, following Michael Thompson's lead, I discuss "natural-historical judgments," a type of generic judgment about living things. I walk through a series of formal-semantic proposals for generic sentences, arguing that each founders on its imposition of function-argument analysis on natural-historical judgments. The logical form of natural-historical judgments is not to be understood on the functional model; the categories deployed in their grasp are not explained by their use in codifying inference patterns.I associate the view that the uncovering of logical form is a piecemeal, unprincipled affair with the later work of Wittgenstein. I bring out how Wittgenstein's engagement in the Tractatus with Frege's and Russell's conceptions of logic paves the way for his later development of the notion of grammar in the Investigations, in order to show how the conception of form I advocate has a genuine claim to logicality

Reconsidering Conventionalism: An Invitation to a Sophisticated Philosophy for Modern (Space-)Times

Geometric underdetermination (i.e., the underdetermination of the geometric properties of space and time) is a live possibility in light of some of our best theories of physics. In response to this, geometric conventionalism offers a selective anti-realism, refusing to assign truth values to variant geometric propositions. Although often regarded as being dead in the water by modern philosophers, in this article we propose to revitalise the programme of geometric conventionalism both on its own terms, and as an attractive response to the above-mentioned live cases of geometric underdetermination. Specifically, we (1) articulate geometrical conventionalism as we conceive it, (2) anticipate various objections to the view, and defend it against those objections, and (3) demonstrate how geometric conventionalism plays out in the context of a wide variety of spacetime theories, both classical and relativistic