Propositions: Individuation and Invirtuation

The pressure to individuate propositions more finely than intensionally—that is, hyper-intensionally—has two distinct sources. One source is the philosophy of mind: one can believe a proposition without believing an intensionally equivalent proposition. The second source is metaphysics: there are intensionally equivalent propositions, such that one proposition is true in virtue of the other but not vice versa. I focus on what our theory of propositions should look like when it's guided by metaphysical concerns about what is true in virtue of what. In this paper I articulate and defend a metaphysical theory of the individuation of propositions, according to which two propositions are identical just in case they occupy the same nodes in a network of invirtuation relations. Invirtuation is here taken to be a primitive relation of metaphysical explanation exemplified by propositions that, in conjunction with truth, defines the notion of true in virtue of. After formulating the theory, I compare it with a view that individuates propositions by cognitive equivalence, and then defend the theory from objections.     

Untangling the Theory of Planned Behavior's auxiliary assumptions and theoretical assumptions: Implications for predictive and intervention studies

It has been asserted that the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is better at behavioral prediction than it is behavioral change. However, the performance of a theory depends not only on the theoretical propositions, but the auxiliary assumptions attached to the theory. It is because of such auxiliary assumptions, which are required to bridge the gap between nonobservational terms at the level of theory and the observational terms at the level of the empirical hypothesis, that we believe critiques of the TPB's utility are misguided. We argue that a failure to separate theoretical assumptions from auxiliary assumptions leads to this false assumption. We suggest the importance of distinguishing between the auxiliary assumptions required for prediction studies and the auxiliary assumptions required for intervention studies. We believe that in attaching sound auxiliary assumptions to intervention studies, the TPB is equally effective at facilitating behavior change as it is behavior prediction.     

Fairness heuristic theory: valid but not empirical

Fairness heuristic theory is concerned with how people react to outcomes of their dealings with authorities, and makes some predictions concerning the relationship between perceived fairness of procedures, perceived fairness of outcomes and acceptance of outcomes. Although considerable effort has been put into establishing empirical evidence for the theory, it is argued that such efforts have no bearing upon the truth of the theory. Central propositions of fairness heuristic theory that have recently been tested empirically are examined and found to be nonempirical and noncontingent. The propositions, it is argued, are necessary truths of commonsense psychology that are not falsifiable by empirical outcomes. Hence, empirical research designed to test them, it is argued, is fruitless and misguided.     

Not Propositions

Current computational accounts of meaning in the cognitive sciences are based on abstract, amodal symbols (e.g., nodes, links, propositions) that are arbitrarily related to their referents. We argue that such accounts lack convincing empirical support and that they do not provide a satisfactory account for linguistic meaning. One historic set of results supporting the abstract symbol view has come from investigation into comprehension of negated sentences, such as “The buttons are not black.” These sentences are presumed to be understood as two propositions composed of abstract symbols. One proposition corresponds to “the buttons are black,” and it is embedded in another proposition corresponding to “it is not true.” Thus, the propositional account predicts (a) that comprehension of negated sentences should take longer than comprehension of the corresponding positive sentence (because of the time needed to construct the embedding), but (b) that the resulting embedded propositions are informationally equivalent (but of opposite valence) to the simple proposition underlying the positive sentence. Contrary to these predictions, Experiment 1 demonstrates that negated sentences out of context are interpreted as situationally ambiguous, that is, as conveying less specific information than positive sentences. Furthermore, Experiment 2 demonstrates that when negated sentences are used in an appropriate context, readers do not take longer to understand them. Thus, difficulty with negation is demonstrated to be an artifact of presentation out of context. After discussing other serious problems with the use of abstract symbols, we describe the Indexical Hypothesis. This embodied account of meaning does not depend on abstract symbols, and hence it provides a more satisfactory account of meaning.     

On empirical interpretation

The view that scientific theories are partially interpreted deductive systems (theoretical deductivism) is defended against recent criticisms by Hempel. Hempel argues that the reliance of theoretical inferences (both from observation to theory and also from theory to theory) uponceteris paribus conditions orprovisos must prevent theories from establishing deductive connections among observations. In reply I argue, first, that theoretical deductivism does not in fact require the establishing of such deductive connections: I offer alternative H-D analyses of these inferences. Second, I argue that when the refined character of scientific observation is taken into account, we find that a theorymay after all establish such deductive connections among scientific observations, without reliance on provisos.These conclusions are based on the multi-level Popperian contextualist account of empirical interpretation sketched in a previous paper. As before, I claim that the supposed objections to theoretical deductivism depend upon questionable empiricist theses unnecessarily conjoined with theoretical deductivism by the Logical Positivists. Theoretical deductivism itself is unaffected by these arguments, and remains (when empirical interpretation is properly analyzed) the best account of scientific theories.This paper develops points first made very briefly in my forthcoming review (c). I would like to thank Professor Hempel for correspondence regarding an earlier version of that review, and Professor Demopoulos for commissioning the review.     

Non-empirical and empirical components in the hypotheses of five social psychological experiments

Five studies published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and selected without advance knowledge of their contents, were analyzed with respect to the epistemic and modal status of their hypotheses. It was found that the general hypotheses were a priori and noncontingent (necessarily true), whereas the local auxiliary hypotheses were empirical and contingent. Hence, the data were only relevant for the latter. It is conjectured that such pseudoempirical studies may abound in contemporary psychology. They remain undiscovered because researchers unreflectively believe that all propositions that can be related to data are empirical and that psychological terms need not be defined. Only when terms are defined and presuppositions (axioms) are stated, can one determine the epistemic and modal status of a given proposition, and, hence, whether or not a study is pseudoempirical.     

Parents, peer groups, and other socializing influences

Three propositions that are central to J. R. Harris's group socialization theory (1995, 1998) are considered in this review. These propositions are as follows: (a) Parental behaviors have no long-term effects on children's psychological characteristics, (b) peer groups are the primary environmental influence on psychological functioning, and (c) dyadic relationships are situation-specific and do not generalize. The evidence that J. R. Harris has outlined in support of each of these propositions is reviewed, as is additional empirical research not considered by J. R. Harris. Serious limitations to each proposition are identified. The available evidence is more consistent with a model of multiple socialization agents. An expanded research agenda that permits a more definitive test of J. R. Harris's propositions and social relationship theory is proposed.     

Showing,Analysis and the Truth-Functionality of Logical Necessity in Wittgenstein's Tractatus

This paper aims to explain how the Tractatus attempts to unifylogic by deriving the truth-functionality of logical necessityfrom the thesis that a proposition shows its sense. I first interpret the Tractarian notion of showing as the displaying ofwhat is intrinsic to an expression (or a symbol). Then I argue that, according to theTractatus, the thesis that a proposition shows its sense implies the determinacy of sense, the possibility of the complete elimination of non-primitive symbols, the analyticity thesis and the strong analyticity thesis. The picture theory emerges as what provides the only acceptable account of an elementary proposition, subject to the constraint that a proposition must show its sense. The picture theory and the analyticity thesis then entail the contingency thesis (that an elementary proposition is contingent) and the independence thesis (that elementary propositions are mutually logically independent) which, together with the strong analyticity thesis, imply that all logical propositions are tautologies.     

Theism and other minds: On the falsifiability of non-theories

In this paper I consider three necessary conditions for a proposition counting as a theory: that the proposition be posited for its explanatory power; that it derive its feasibility from the extent to which it provides such explanatory power; and that it be empirically falsifiable. I then argue that some propositions might fail as theories because they do not satisfy the first two conditions, yet still satisfy the third condition. Such propositions I label falsifiable non-theories. I offer folk psychology (the proposition that beliefs, desires, and other intentional phenomena exist and play essential motivational and causal roles in many human actions) as a paradigm example of a falsifiable non-theory. I then argue that theism is in an analogous position. Like folk psychology, it fails to satisfy the first two conditions above for most theists. However, the empirical implications that theism has do make it susceptible to falsification. I demonstrate such falsifiability by an extreme scenario from Keith Yandell. Then I argue that recent work by Paul Draper demonstrates how a well articulated empirical argument from evil might threaten just such falsification.     

A problem of scope for the free energy principle as a theory of cognition

Those who endorse the free energy principle as a theory of cognition (as well as a theory of biological homeostasis) are committed to three propositions that are jointly incompatible but which will cohere if one of them is denied. The first of these is that the free energy principle gives us a self-sufficient explanation of what all cognitive systems consist in: a specific computational architecture. The second is that all adaptive behavior is driven by the free energy principle and the process of model-based inference it entails. The third is that cognition is not ubiquitous. These three incompatible propositions together comprise a problem of scope for the free energy principle as a theory of cognition. The prospects for rejecting each of these propositions are considered. To drop either the first or the second would limit the explanatory success of the principle. However, there are plausible ways to bite the bullet on denial of the third proposition. In particular, I argue that it is possible for the free energy theorist to admit that cognition is ubiquitous in biological systems while reserving conceptual space exclusively for human cognitive capacities.     

Explanatory Effort and Structure as Contributors to the Good Life Among University Students

Ample theory and case evidence suggest the salutary role of making sense or explaining social reality for people's well-being. However, empirical evidence in support of the proposition is slim. To examine this proposition in a testable way, the present study employed a longitudinal panel design to assess associations between earlier reasoning on later well-being among a sample of 151 university students in Hong Kong. At the first wave, it measured reasoning in terms of explanatory consolidation and explanatory effort. Explanatory consolidation referred to a student's consistent agreement or disagreement with propositions of sociological theories that explain social problems, protest, and crime. Explanatory effort concerned the student's tendency to explain social problems. At the second wave, the study measured five good-life indicators to represent well-being. Results showed that explanatory consolidation and effort have significant relations with good life characteristics that are consistent with Chinese culture. These findings support social constructionist claims about the contribution of reasoning in the educational setting.     

真之同一论与单称命题

麦道的哲学试图抹去心灵与世界之间的本体论间隙。为了实现这一哲学计划,麦道需要接受某种真之同一论。本文认为,麦道所需要的是真之坚实同一论,并且承诺关于罗素式单称命题。本文首先论证真之同一论论题,然后更进一步,在麦道的哲学计划下辩护真之坚实同一论,认为真命题与世界中的事实同一。本文并非要给出一个对同一论或坚实同一论的完整理论,而是试图在麦道的哲学计划下给出一个对坚实同一论的辩护,认为坚实同一论是可行的。     

On the Propositional Treatment of Anatmavāda in Early Buddhism and Ātmavāda in Hinduism

As propositions, Anatmavāda and ātmavāda are simply negations of one another. Thus whatever serves as a criterion for truth of the one must serve as a criterion for the other. When we treat them both as a priori propositions, I claim that we are unable to determine their truth value. But if we treat them both as a posteriori propositions, I argue, we are only able to determine their truth value if we attain unqualified omniscience. Because the Hindu account of knowing is far more conducive to the idea of unqualified omniscience, we might be tempted to assert that the empirical verification of these doctrines taken as propositions is far more likely in the Hindu tradition than the early Buddhist one. However, 'empirical omniscience' carries us very far from received views, thus I conclude that it makes no sense to treat these doctrines as truth-valued propositions.     

XIII—Questions of Unity

In The Principles of Mathematics , Bertrand Russell famously puzzled over something he called the unity of the proposition. Echoing Russell, many philosophers have talked over the years about the question or problem of the unity of the proposition. In fact, I believe that there are a number of quite distinct though related questions all of which can plausibly be taken to be questions regarding the unity of propositions. I state three such questions and show how the theory of propositions defended in my recent book The Nature and Structure of Content (2007) answers them.     

A counterexample to the contrastive account of knowledge

Many epistemologists treat knowledge as a binary relation that holds between a subject and a proposition. The contrastive account of knowledge developed by Jonathan Schaffer maintains that knowledge is a ternary, contrastive relation that holds between a subject, a proposition, and a set of contextually salient alternative propositions the subject’s evidence must eliminate. For the contrastivist, it is never simply the case that S knows that p; in every case of knowledge S knows that p rather than q. This paper offers a counterexample to the contrastive account of knowledge. Part 1 summarizes the contrastive theory developed by Schaffer in a series of recent papers. Part 2 presents an example from a class of cases characterized by compatibility between the proposition p and each of the alternative propositions that occupy q. In such cases the alternative propositions that partially constitute the ternary contrastive relation play no role in the acquisition of knowledge. Part 3 considers and rejects potential responses to the counterexample. The paper concludes that the contrastive theory is not a general account of knowledge.     

A Closer Look Into the Multi‐Layer Structure of Motivational Intensity Theory

Drawing on the idea that humans aim to avoid wasting energy that is important for survival, motivational intensity theory postulates that task difficulty and success importance determine energy investment. Additionally, the theory makes predictions on how task characteristics moderate the relationship between task difficulty, success importance, and energy investment. In this article, I will show how the different predictions of motivational intensity theory relate to one another and to what extent they can be derived from the fundamental principle of energy conservation. I will also discuss the application of the theory to effort mobilization and cardiovascular reactivity. Specifically, I will discuss the additional assumptions and predictions that are necessary to link these applications to motivational intensity theory’s basic rationale, the energy conservation principle.     

Can probability theory explain why closure is both intuitive and prone to counterexamples?

Epistemic closure under known implication is the principle that knowledge of \(\varphi\) and knowledge of \(\varphi \rightarrow \psi\), together, imply knowledge of \(\psi\). This principle is intuitive, yet several putative counterexamples have been formulated against it. This paper addresses the question, why is epistemic closure both intuitive and prone to counterexamples? In particular, the paper examines whether probability theory can offer an answer to this question based on four strategies. The first probability-based strategy rests on the accumulation of risks. The problem with this strategy is that risk accumulation cannot accommodate certain counterexamples to epistemic closure. The second strategy is based on the idea of evidential support, that is, a piece of evidence supports a proposition whenever it increases the probability of the proposition. This strategy makes progress and can accommodate certain putative counterexamples to closure. However, this strategy also gives rise to a number of counterintuitive results. Finally, there are two broadly probabilistic strategies, one based on the idea of resilient probability and the other on the idea of assumptions that are taken for granted. These strategies are promising but are prone to some of the shortcomings of the second strategy. All in all, I conclude that each strategy fails. Probability theory, then, is unlikely to offer the account we need.     

On the general theory of meaningful representation

The numerical representations of measurement, geometry and kinematics are here subsumed under a general theory of representation. The standard theories of meaningfulness of representational propositions in these three areas are shown to be special cases of two theories of meaningfulness for arbitrary representational propositions: the theories based on unstructured and on structured representation respectively. The foundations of the standard theories of meaningfulness are critically analyzed and two basic assumptions are isolated which do not seem to have received adequate justification: the assumption that a proposition invariant under the appropriate group is therefore meaningful, and the assumption that representations should be unique up to a transformation of the appropriate group. A general theory of representational meaningfulness is offered, based on a semantic and syntactic analysis of representational propositions. Two neglected features of representational propositions are formalized and made use of: (a) that such propositions are induced by more general propositions defined for other structures than the one being represented, and (b) that the true purpose of representation is the application of the theory of the representing system to the represented system. On the basis of these developments, justifications are offered for the two problematic assumptions made by the existing theories.Material from this paper was presented at a conference on meaningfulness in the theory of measurement held at New York University in December 1984, hosted by J. C. Falmagne. I would like to thank Patrick Suppes for arranging my invitation to this conference, and David Krantz, R. Duncan Luce, and Fred Roberts for helpful comments. I would also like to thank an anonymous referee for extremely detailed and helpful comments and suggestions, the most important of which are acknowledged in footnotes.     

A heterodox defense of the actualist higher-order thought theory

I defend the actualist higher-order thought theory against four objections. The first objection contends that the theory is circular. The second one contends that the theory is unable to account for the alleged epistemic position we are in with respect to our own conscious mental states. The third one contends that the theory is unable to account for the evidence we have for the proposition that all conscious mental states are represented. The fourth one contends that the theory does not accommodate the intimacy we have with our own conscious mental states. To some extent, my defense will be heterodox, in the sense that I will show that some objections are satisfactorily answerable even if we concede to the objectors a point that higher-order theorists do not seem to be willing to concede, that is, that the theory is the result of conceptual analysis.

     

Understanding,Self‐Evidence,and Justification

Self‐evidence is plausibly taken to be a status that marks propositions as capable of being justifiedly believed (and known) on the basis of understanding them. This paper explicates and defends that view. The paper shows that the broadly linguistic kind of understanding implied by basic semantic comprehension of a formulation of a self‐evident proposition does not entail being justified in believing that proposition; that the kind of understanding adequate to yield such justification is multi‐dimensional; and that there are many variables partly constitutive of such understanding—all philosophically interesting in themselves—that a theory of self‐evidence must account for. The paper also shows why self‐evident propositions need not be obvious, need not be unprovable, and, far from being beyond dispute, can be rationally disputed. The concluding section shows how knowledge of self‐evident propositions is possible even if, on the one hand, their elements are abstract and causally inert and, on the other, beliefs constituting knowledge must meet both causal and reliability conditions connected with their truthmakers.