Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  David Lewis
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Davida Lewisa koncepcja fikcyjnego stanu rzeczy jako opisu świata możliwego a problem statusu norm prawnych

100%
Jakubiec M.
Semina Scientiarum
|
2016
|
vol. 15
2
Content available remote

Naturalness of properties and simplicity of theories

89%
Drobňák M.
Teorie vědy (Theory of Science)
|
2019
|
vol. 41
|
issue 1
3-19
EN
In this paper, I discuss a specifi c approach to measuring and comparing the simplicity of theories that is based on Lewis’s notion of fundamental properties. In particular, I discuss the criterion of simplicity as stated by Williams. According to Williams, the best candidate for a theory is the one which has the shortest defi nition in terms of fundamental properties. Th e aim of this paper is to show that the criterion thus specifi ed has two constraints. First, the criterion is not applicable to cases in which candidates for theories that specify fundamental properties are compared. Secondly, the applicability of the criterion in social sciences seems to be unwarranted.
CS
V tomto příspěvku se zabývám specifi ckým přístupem k měření a porovnání jednoduchosti teorií, který je založen na Lewisově pojetí fundamentálních vlastností. Zejména se zabývám kritériem jednoduchosti, jak ho prezentuje Williams. Podle Williamse nejlepší kandidát na teorii je ten, který má nejkratší defi nici z hlediska fundamentálních vlastností. Cílem tohoto příspěvku je ukázat, že takto specifi kované kritérium má dvě omezení. Zaprvé, kritérium není použitelné v případech, kdy porovnáváme kandidáty na teorie, které stanovují fundamentální vlastnosti. Zadruhé, aplikace tohoto kritéria v sociálních vědách se zdá být neopodstatněná.
3

The mereology of structural universals

75%
Forrest P.
Logic and Logical Philosophy
|
2016
|
vol. 25
|
issue 3 Mereology and Beyond (II)
259-283
EN
This paper explores the mereology of structural universals, using the structural richness of a non-classical mereology without unique fusions. The paper focuses on a problem posed by David Lewis, who using the example of methane, and assuming classical mereology, argues against any purely mereological theory of structural universals. The problem is that being a methane molecule would have to contain being a hydrogen atom four times over, but mereology does not have the concept of the same part occurring several times. This paper takes up the challenge by providing mereological analysis of three operations sufficient for a theory of structural universals: (1) Reflexive binding, i.e. identifying two of the places of a universal; (2) Existential binding, i.e. the language-independent correlate of an existential quantification; and (3) Conjunction.
4
Content available remote

Epistemological Naturalness: What is a good heuristic strategy good for?

75%
Drobňák M.
Logic and Logical Philosophy
|
2018
|
vol. 27
|
issue 1
85–104
EN
According to the standard interpretation of Lewis’s theory of predicate meaning (the U&N theory), the naturalness of meaning candidates should be stated metaphysically  as a length of definition in terms of fundamental properties. Recently, Weatherson has criticized the U&N theory and argued that the criterion of naturalness should be stated epistemologically  as the amount of evidence needed to form a belief. Despite the criticism, his attitude towards the U&N theory is quite relaxed. According to Weatherson, the U&N theory can be used as a good heuristic for delivering the correct verdicts when doing applied semantics, i.e., when we try to determine the best meaning candidate for a particular predicate. In this paper, I try to show that the “good heuristic strategy” is of no use because A) there is no guarantee that the epistemological and the metaphysical criteria of naturalness deliver the same verdicts and B) even if they deliver the same verdicts, the difference in their theoretical backgrounds may affect arguments which rely on the verdicts. The difference will be shown by drawing on the example of Theodore Sider and his use of the U&N theory.
5
Content available remote

Przedmiotowe logiki fikcji. Cz. I: Semantyki światów możliwych D. Lewisa

51%
Gurczyński J.
Diametros
|
2012
|
issue 33
1-19
PL
Artykuł rozważa zasadność wykorzystania semantyk światów możliwych D. Lewisa do analizy przedmiotów fikcyjnych. Omówione zostają charakterystyczne cechy przedmiotów fikcyjnych: niezupełność ontologiczna, dwupoziomowość uposażenia, a także możliwość posiadania własności sprzecznych. Następnie analizuje się, czy w ramach semantyk światów możliwych można w adekwatny sposób ująć te wyróżnione cechy przedmiotów fikcyjnych. Dokonuje się też krótkiego porównania semantyk światów możliwych z systemami logik meinongowskich. Konkluzją tych rozważań jest, że semantyki światów możliwych można wykorzystywać do analiz przedmiotów fikcyjnych, chociaż lepiej sprawdzają się w tym logiki dedykowane, np. logiki meinongowskie. Należy jednak pamiętać o tym, że logiki meinongowskie pozwalają jedynie analizować przedmioty fikcyjne, natomiast gdy chcemy w ich ramach mówić o światach fikcyjnych, to musimy sięgnąć po semantyki światów możliwych. Tak więc pełne analizy fikcji – obejmujące przedmioty i światy fikcyjne – mogą zapewnić nam systemy odwołujące się zarówno do logik meinongowskich, jak i semantyk światów możliwych.
EN
This paper discusses the validity of David Lewis’s possible worlds semantics in the analysis of fictional objects. It points out the distinctive features of fictional objects: ontological incompleteness, double structure of predication and also the possibility of inconsistency. Subsequently, the possibility of speaking adequately about these properties using possible worlds semantics is examined. What follows is a brief comparison of possible worlds semantics with Meinongian logic. The conclusion is that although we can use possible worlds semantics to analyze fictional objects, Meinongian logic is a much more valid alternative. It must be stressed, however, that using Meinongian logic we can only analyze fictional objects, not fictional worlds. To analyze the latter, we have to use possible worlds semantics. Thus, a complete analysis of fiction, namely fictional objects and fictional worlds, needs both Meinongian logic and possible worlds semantics.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.