Laudan famously argued that neither truth nor approximate truth can be part of an explanation of a scientific theory's predictive success because in the history of science there were theories that enjoyed some limited success but now are considered outright false. The power of his argument lay in the many historic examples he listed . Realists have disputed that all theories on Laudan's list can be regarded as predictively successful but let's suppose momentarily that at least some exist that support (...) his point. In this case, there are historic false theories that made some true predictions. We are aiming for a general explanation of a theory's predictive success and hence these false theories necessarily are on board. Now, Laudan also argues that historic false theories – the downright false ones and the ones we nowadays judge as strictly false, but approximately true – do not in any principled sense differ from the ones we presently accept. These theories seem to present a good basis for inductively inferring that any presently accepted scientific theory is actually false. Many presently accepted theories certainly are predictively successful to a great extent and certainly their success should be covered by an acceptable explanation. Since there seems to be inductive support for the conclusion that …. (shrink)

A monist theory of explanation is one that seeks a common definition for all speech acts answering why-questions. One recent example is the counterfactual theory of explanation, which assumes that an ideal explanation can be characterized by the familiar Hempelian criteria for a scientific explanation plus a certain counterfactual that is supported by the laws mentioned in the explanans. I show that the CTE fails. My discussion leads to a critique of the CTE’s key concept of counterfactual dependence and to (...) the suggestion of an alternative: For an argument to be a scientific explanation, a certain necessary-condition claim must be true. For an answer to a why-question to be an explanation, it must express a certain necessary condition. (shrink)

A hidden-variable model for quantum–mechanical spin, as represented by the Pauli spin operators, is proposed for systems illustrating the well-known no-hidden-variables arguments by Peres (Phys Lett A 151:107–108, 1990) and Mermin (Phys Rev Lett 65:3373–3376, 1990) and by Greenberger et al. (Bell’s theorem, quantum theory, and conceptions of the universe, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989). Both arguments rely on an assumption of non-contextuality; the latter argument can also be phrased as a non-locality argument, using a locality assumption. The model suggested here is (...) compatible with both assumptions. This is possible because the scalar values of spin observables are replaced by vectors that are components of orientations. (shrink)

"Cognitive psychology," "cognitive neuroscience," and "philosophy of mind" are names for three very different scientific fields, but they label aspects of the same scientific goal: to understand the nature of mental phenomena. Today, the three disciplines strongly overlap under the roof of the cognitive sciences. The book's purpose is to present views from the different disciplines on one of the central theories in cognitive science: the theory of mental models. Cognitive psychologists report their research on the representation and processing of (...) mental models in human memory. Cognitive neuroscientists demonstrate how the brain processes visual and spatial mental models and which neural processes underlie visual and spatial thinking. Philosophers report their ideas about the role of mental models in relation to perception, emotion, representation, and intentionality. The single articles have different and mutually complementing goals: to introduce new empirical methods and approaches, to report new experimental results, and to locate competing approaches for their interpretation in the cross-disciplinary debate. The book is strongly interdisciplinary in character. It is especially addressed to researchers in any field related to mental models theory as both a reference book and an overview of present research on the topic in other disciplines. However, it is also an ideal reader for a specialized graduate course. (shrink)

The standard axiomatization of quantum mechanics (QM) is not fully explicit about the role of the time-parameter. Especially, the time reference within the probability algorithm (the Born Rule, BR) is unclear. From a probability principle P1 and a second principle P2 affording a most natural way to make BR precise, a logical conflict with the standard expression for the completeness of QM can be derived. Rejecting P1 is implausible. Rejecting P2 leads to unphysical results and to a conflict with a (...) generalization of P2, a principle P3. All three principles are shown to be without alternative. It is thus shown that the standard expression of QM completeness must be revised. An absolutely explicit form of the axioms is provided, including a precise form of the projection postulate. An appropriate expression for QM completeness, reflecting the restrictions of the Gleason and Kochen-Specker theorems is proposed. (shrink)

The completeness of quantum mechanics is generally interpreted to be or entail the following conditional statement ): If a QM system S is in a pure non-eigenstate of observable A, then S does not have value ak of A at t. QM itself can be assumed to contain two elements: a formula generating probabilities; Hamiltonians that can be time-dependent due to a time-dependent external potential. It is shown that, given and, QM and SC are incompatible. Hence, SC is not the (...) appropriate interpretation of the completeness of QM. (shrink)

Einstein made several attempts to argue for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, not all of them using a separation principle. One unpublished example, the box parable, has received increased attention in the recent literature. Though the example is tailor-made for applying a separation principle and Einstein indeed applies one, he begins his discussion without it. An analysis of this first part of the parable naturally leads to an argument for incompleteness not involving a separation principle. I discuss the argument and (...) its systematic import. Though it should be kept in mind that the argument is not the one Einstein intends, I show how it suggests itself and leads to a conflict between QM’s completeness and a physical principle more fundamental than the separation principle, i.e. a principle saying that QM should deliver probabilities for physical systems possessing properties at definite times. (shrink)

Rationality in decision making is commonly assessed by comparing choice performance against normative standards. We argue that such a performance-centered approach blurs the distinction between rational choice and adaptive behavior. Instead, rational choice should be assessed with regard to the way individuals make analytic decisions. We suggest that analytic decisions can be made in two different modes in which control processes are directed at different levels. In a RUN mode, thought is directed at controlling the operation of a decision strategy. (...) In the JUMP mode, the individual analyses the interpretation of the decision situation as well as the appropriateness of alternative strategies. We suggest that a decision should be considered “rational” when an individual is able to switch between these modes and balance their interaction. (shrink)

Any theory of conditions must solve the symmetry problem, i.e. must explain why being a necessary condition and being sufficient condition in many cases are not mutual converses, yet in some cases having to do with the notion of truth they are; and must explain why being a necessary and sufficient condition is generally non-symmetric, yet in some cases having to do with the notion of truth is symmetric. I explain the problem and propose a solution.

Antecedent-strengthening, a trivially valid inference of classical logic of the form: P → Q ⊨ → Q, has a counterpart in everyday reasoning that often fails. A plausible solution to the problem involves assuming an implicit ceteris paribus qualifier that can be explicated as an additional conjunct in the antecedent of the premise. The qualifier can be explicated as ‘everything else relevant remains unchanged’ or alternatively as ‘nothing interferes’. The qualifier appears most prominently in the context of the discussion of (...) laws in the sciences, where these laws are often expressed with a CP qualifier. From an analysis of the qualifier’s role in the problem of antecedent-strengthening, we can learn more about CP qualifiers in general and in their application to the laws used in the sciences. (shrink)

The paper presents an argument for the incompleteness in principle of quantum mechanics. I introduce four principles (P0–P3) concerning the interpretation of probability, in general and in quantum mechanics, and argue that the defender of completeness must reject either P0 or all of P1–P3, which options both seem unacceptable. The problem is shown to be more fundamental than the measurement problem and to have implications for our understanding of quantum-mechanical contextuality.

Gibt es ein einzelnes Problem, das mit Recht als das Grundproblem der Semantik bezeichnet werden kann? Der Titel dieses Buches behauptet es und unterstellt zugleich, Frege habe sich mit diesem Grundproblem auseinandergesetzt. Die Aufgabe der Semantik besteht darin, die unterschiedlichen semantischen Funktionen verschiedener Ausdrücke darzustellen; sie wird zum Problem, weil unklar ist, wie sie begonnen werden soll. Einerseits sind die selbständigen Ausdrücke (meistens syntaktisch und immer semantisch) komplex, so dass scheinbar auch ihre Funktionen aus denen der einfacheren, die sie aufbauen, (...) erklärt werden müssen; andererseits ist gerade dies unmöglich, weil die letzteren Funktionen sicher nicht von den ersteren abhängen. Freges Beitrag zur philosophischen Semantik besteht zunächst einmal in gegensätzlichen Vorschlägen - kompositionaler Charakter der Sätze bei gleichzeitiger Kontextualität der Aufbaustücke - die sich jedoch verständlich vereinbaren lassen, und eine Aufklärung jener Funktionen von den komplexen her, beispielsweise der des Behauptungssatzes, ermöglichen. Nun können auch Freges Überlegungen zur semantischen Funktion des Behauptungssatzes selbst fruchtbar gemacht werden, und von dorther wird schließlich auch seine Theorie der unterschiedlichen Funktionen der einfacheren Ausdrücke, insbesondere der Eigennamen und Prädikate, verständlich. (shrink)

For an indicative conditional to be true it is not generally sufficient that its antecedent be false or its consequent true. I propose to analyse such a conditional as strong, i.e. as containing a tacit quantification over a domain of possible situations, with the if-clause specifying that domain such that the conditional gets assigned the appropriate truth conditions. Now, one definition of logical consequence proceeds in terms of a natural-language conditional. Interpreting it as strong leads to a paraconsistent consequence relation, (...) though the motivation behind it is not to reason coherently about contradictions but to reason entirely without them. (shrink)

The different versions of the Kochen-Specker Theorem show that quantum mechanics cannot be supplemented by hidden variables given two constraints. These results are generally interpreted as showing that QM is complete in the following way. A QM system S has only those values of observables for which the state yields probability 1. For all other probabilities S adopts a value during the measurement interaction. But this interpretation is fundamentally problematic. In fact it cannot yield a general and coherent interpretation of (...) the trace formula. I present an argument to this effect, discuss a possible objection and sketch implications. (shrink)