Laws,the Inference Problem,and Uninstantiated Universals

The difficulties facing Humean regularity accounts of laws have led some philosophers to a theory that takes laws to be necessitation relations between universals. In this paper I evaluate David Armstrong's version of this theory by considering two of its key elements: its solution to the so‐called “Inference Problem” and its denial of uninstantiated universals. After considering some potential problems with each of these elements on their own, I argue that Armstrong's solution to the Inference Problem and his denial of uninstantiated universals are not two independent aspects of his view. His solution to the Inference Problem depends upon his denial of uninstantiated universals.     

Universals

In this paper, I argue that there are universals. I begin (Sect. 1) by proposing a sufficient condition for a thing’s being a universal. I then argue (Sect. 2) that some truths exist necessarily. Finally, I argue (Sects. 3 and 4) that these truths are structured entities having constituents that meet the proposed sufficient condition for being universals.     

Predication and the Problem of Universals

Abstract

This paper contrasts the scholastic realisms of David Armstrong and Charles Peirce. It is argued that the so-called ‘problem of universals’ is not a problem in pure ontology (concerning whether universals exist) as Armstrong construes it to be. Rather, it extends to issues concerning which predicates should be applied where, issues which Armstrong sets aside under the label of ‘semantics’, and which from a Peircean perspective encompass even the fundamentals of scientific methodology. It is argued that Peirce's scholastic realism not only presents a more nuanced ontology (distinguishing the existent from the real) but also provides more of a sense of why realism should be a position worth fighting for.     

Descartes' Theory of Universals

Philosophical Studies -     

Universals and cultural differences in recognizing emotions

Moving beyond the earlier nature-versus-nurture debate, modern work on the communication of emotion has incorporated both universals and cultural differences. Classic research demonstrated that the intended emotions in posed expressions were recognized by members of many different cultural groups at rates better than predicted by random guessing. However, recent research has also documented evidence for an in-group advantage, meaning that people are generally more accurate at judging emotions when the emotions are expressed by members of their own cultural group rather than by members of a different cultural group. These new findings provide initial support for a dialect theory of emotion that has the potential to integrate both classic and recent findings. Further research in this area has the potential to improve cross-cultural communication.     

Structural Universals And Formal Relations

I will consider Armstrong's problems in trying to account for structural universals,i.e., a kind of complex universal whose instantiation by particulars involves differentparts of those particulars instantiating several basic properties and relations, such asthe property of being a molecule of methane. I present and criticise Armstrong's mostrecent attempt to explain structural properties by means of the identification of universals with types of states of affairs and I state my own solution to the problem by appealing to formal relations holding between particulars.     

Quantitative Standards for Absolute Linguistic Universals

Absolute linguistic universals are often justified by cross‐linguistic analysis: If all observed languages exhibit a property, the property is taken to be a likely universal, perhaps specified in the cognitive or linguistic systems of language learners and users. In many cases, these patterns are then taken to motivate linguistic theory. Here, we show that cross‐linguistic analysis will very rarely be able to statistically justify absolute, inviolable patterns in language. We formalize two statistical methods—frequentist and Bayesian—and show that in both it is possible to find strict linguistic universals, but that the numbers of independent languages necessary to do so is generally unachievable. This suggests that methods other than typological statistics are necessary to establish absolute properties of human language, and thus that many of the purported universals in linguistics have not received sufficient empirical justification.     

In Defence of Spatially Related Universals

Immanent universals, being wholly present wherever they are instantiated, are capable both of bi-location (one entity's being wholly present in two places at one time) and of co-location (two entities' being wholly present in the same place at one time). As a result, they can become involved in some bizarre situations, situations whose contradictory appearance cannot be dispelled by any of the relativizing techniques familiar to metaphysicians as solutions to the problem of change. Douglas Ehring takes this to be a fatal problem for immanent universals, but I do not. Although the old relativizing techniques don't solve the problem, I propose a new one that does. I spend half the paper defending the proposed solution against objections, and in the course of this task I have occasion to touch upon such topics as backward time travel and the distinction between universals and particulars. I close by putting forward--merely as an option--a new way to draw the distinction in question.