An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth
TL;DR: In this paper, an Inquiry into Meaning and Truth by Bertrand Russell is presented, which deals in a comprehensive and unsystematic way with the class of philosophical problems that are conventionally brought under the heading of the theory of knowledge.
Abstract: BERTRAND RUSSELL is the Picasso of modern philosophy. He has expressed himself very differently at different periods; and in each period he has exerted deservedly great influence and aroused extravagant hostility. That his works have always produced so strong a reaction is partly due to the sharpness and clarity with which they have been written. But this, unfortunately, does not hold good of his latest book, which differs not so much in its subject matter as in its style from anything that he has written before. It deals in a comprehensive, if unsystematic, way with the class of philosophical problems that are conventionally brought under the heading of the theory of knowledge. Many interesting questions are raised by it and ingenious answers suggested. But the argument as a whole suffers from a hesitancy and discursiveness which make it unexpectedly difficult to follow. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth By Bertrand Russell. Pp. 352. (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1940). 12s. 6d. net
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The basic concepts of rough set theory are presented and some rough set-based research directions and applications are pointed out, indicating that the rough set approach is fundamentally important in artificial intelligence and cognitive sciences.
2,004 citations
Cites background from "An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth"
...…the renowned English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) observed [266] that the intuitive notion of a set given by Cantor leads to logical antinomies (contradictions), i.e., Cantor set theory is contra- dictory (there are other kinds of antinomies, which are outside the scope of this paper)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the treatment of verbal behavior in terms of such functional relations between verbal responses and stimuli provides a radical behaviorist alternative to the operationism of methodological behaviorists, and it is shown how verbal responses to private stimuli can arise as social products through the contingencies of reinforcement arranged by verbal communities.
Abstract: The major contributions of operationism have been negative, largely because operationists failed to distinguish logical theories of reference from empirical accounts of language. Behaviorism never finished an adequate formulation of verbal reports and therefore could not convincingly embrace subjective terms. But verbal responses to private stimuli can arise as social products through the contingencies of reinforcement arranged by verbal communities.In analyzing traditional psychological terms, we need to know their stimulus conditions (“finding the referent”), and why each response is controlled by that condition. Consistent reinforcement of verbal responses in the presence of stimuli presupposes stimuli acting upon both the speaker and the reinforcing community, but subjective terms, which apparently are responses to private stimuli, lack this characteristic. Private stimuli are physical, but we cannot account for these verbal responses by pointing to controlling stimuli, and we have not shown how verbal communities can establish and maintain the necessary consistency of reinforcement contingencies.Verbal responses to private stimuli may be maintained through appropriate reinforcement based on public accompaniments, or through reinforcements accorded responses made to public stimuli, with private cases then occurring by generalization. These contingencies help us understand why private terms have never formed a stable and uniform vocabulary: It is impossible to establish rigorous vocabularies of private stimuli for public use, because differential reinforcement cannot be made contingent upon the property of privacy. The language of private events is anchored in the public practices of the verbal community, which make individuals aware only by differentially reinforcing their verbal responses with respect to their own bodies. The treatment of verbal behavior in terms of such functional relations between verbal responses and stimuli provides a radical behaviorist alternative to the operationism of methodological behaviorists.
1,145 citations
TL;DR: A distinction is made between two subclasses of intervening variables, or the authors prefer to say, between ‘intervening variables’ and ‘hypothetical constructs’ which they feel is fundamental but is currently being neglected.
Abstract: As the thinking of behavior theorists has become more sophisticated and selfconscious, there has been considerable discussion of the value and logical status of so-called ‘intervening variables.’ Hull speaks of “symbolic constructs, intervening variables, or hypothetical entities” (5, p. 22) and deals with them in his theoretical discussion as being roughly equivalent notions. At least, his exposition does not distinguish among them explicitly. In his presidential address on behavior at a choice point, Tolman inserts one of Hull’s serial conditioning diagrams (11, p. 13) between the independent variables (maintenance schedule, goal object, etc.) and the dependent variable (‘behavior ratio’) to illustrate his concept of the intervening variable. This would seem to imply that Tolman views his ‘intervening variables’ as of the same character as Hull’s. In view of this, it is somewhat surprising to discover that Skinner apparently feels that his formulations have a close affinity to those of Tolman, but are basically dissimilar to those of Hull (10, p. 436, 437). In advocating a theoretical structure which is ‘descriptive’ and ‘positivistic,’ he suggests that the model chosen by Hull (Newtonian mechanics) is not the most suitable model for purposes of behavior theory; and in general is critical of the whole postulate-deductive approach. Simultaneously with these trends, one can still observe among ‘tough-minded’ psychologists the use of words such as ‘unobservable’ and ‘hypothetical’ in an essentially derogatory manner, and an almost compulsive fear of passing beyond the direct colligation of observable data. ‘Fictions’ and ‘hypothetical entities’ are sometimes introduced into a discussion of theory with a degree of trepidation and apology quite unlike the freedom with which physicists talk about atoms, mesons, fields, and the like. There also seems to be a tendency to treat all hypothetical constructs as on the same footing merely because they are hypothetical; so that we find people arguing that if neutrons are admissible in physics, it must be admissible for us to talk about, e.g., the damming up of libido and its reversion to earlier channels. The view which theoretical psychologists take toward intervening variables and hypothetical constructs will of course profoundly influence the direction of theoretical thought. Furthermore, what kinds of hypothetical constructs we become accustomed to thinking about will have a considerable impact upon theory creation. The present paper aims to present what seems to us a major problem in the conceptualization of intervening variables, without claiming to offer a wholly satisfactory solution. Chiefly, it is our aim here to make a distinction between two subclasses of intervening variables, or we prefer to say, between ‘intervening variables’ and ‘hypothetical constructs’ which we feel is fundamental but is currently being neglected. We shall begin with a common-sense distinction, and proceed later to formulations of this distinction which we hope will be more rigorous. Naively, it would seem that there is a difference in logical status between constructs which involve the hypothesization of an entity, proc-
948 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the notion of material adequacy of a definition of truth is defined as follows: if all these equivalences follow from it, then the definition is true if, and only if, p.X is true.
Abstract: X is true if, and only if, p. [...] we shall call a definition of truth “adequate” if all these equivalences follow from it. [...] The definition of truth which was outlined above [...] implies all equivalences of the form (T). In this connnection it is important to notice that the conditions for the material adequacy of the definition determine uniquely the extension of the term “true.” Therefore, every definition of truth which is materially adequate would necessarily be equivalent to that actually constructed. The semantic conception of truth gives us, so to speak, no possibility of choice between variaous non-equivalent definitions of this notion..
940 citations
TL;DR: This article present a conceptual framework for organizing and relating terms that pertain to select knowledge constructs, which is intended to clarify terms and the associations among them, and to articulate definitional statements for these knowledge terms.
Abstract: Terms used to designate knowledge constructs have proliferated in the literature and often seem to duplicate, subsume, or contradict one another. In this article, we present a conceptual framework for organizing and relating terms that pertain to select knowledge constructs. We begin with an examination of the literature. Based on that review, we build a framework that is intended to clarify terms, and the associations among them, and to articulate definitional statements for these knowledge terms. Finally, we consider the importance of this theoretical undertaking for future research in cognition and in learning.
714 citations
Cites background from "An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth"
...Indeed, we recognize that philosophical literatures exist (e.g., Goldman, 1986; Hussey, 1990; Rozeboom, 1973; Russell, 1940) that address knowledge as an epistemological issue....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The basic concepts of rough set theory are presented and some rough set-based research directions and applications are pointed out, indicating that the rough set approach is fundamentally important in artificial intelligence and cognitive sciences.
2,004 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the treatment of verbal behavior in terms of such functional relations between verbal responses and stimuli provides a radical behaviorist alternative to the operationism of methodological behaviorists, and it is shown how verbal responses to private stimuli can arise as social products through the contingencies of reinforcement arranged by verbal communities.
Abstract: The major contributions of operationism have been negative, largely because operationists failed to distinguish logical theories of reference from empirical accounts of language. Behaviorism never finished an adequate formulation of verbal reports and therefore could not convincingly embrace subjective terms. But verbal responses to private stimuli can arise as social products through the contingencies of reinforcement arranged by verbal communities.In analyzing traditional psychological terms, we need to know their stimulus conditions (“finding the referent”), and why each response is controlled by that condition. Consistent reinforcement of verbal responses in the presence of stimuli presupposes stimuli acting upon both the speaker and the reinforcing community, but subjective terms, which apparently are responses to private stimuli, lack this characteristic. Private stimuli are physical, but we cannot account for these verbal responses by pointing to controlling stimuli, and we have not shown how verbal communities can establish and maintain the necessary consistency of reinforcement contingencies.Verbal responses to private stimuli may be maintained through appropriate reinforcement based on public accompaniments, or through reinforcements accorded responses made to public stimuli, with private cases then occurring by generalization. These contingencies help us understand why private terms have never formed a stable and uniform vocabulary: It is impossible to establish rigorous vocabularies of private stimuli for public use, because differential reinforcement cannot be made contingent upon the property of privacy. The language of private events is anchored in the public practices of the verbal community, which make individuals aware only by differentially reinforcing their verbal responses with respect to their own bodies. The treatment of verbal behavior in terms of such functional relations between verbal responses and stimuli provides a radical behaviorist alternative to the operationism of methodological behaviorists.
1,145 citations
TL;DR: A distinction is made between two subclasses of intervening variables, or the authors prefer to say, between ‘intervening variables’ and ‘hypothetical constructs’ which they feel is fundamental but is currently being neglected.
Abstract: As the thinking of behavior theorists has become more sophisticated and selfconscious, there has been considerable discussion of the value and logical status of so-called ‘intervening variables.’ Hull speaks of “symbolic constructs, intervening variables, or hypothetical entities” (5, p. 22) and deals with them in his theoretical discussion as being roughly equivalent notions. At least, his exposition does not distinguish among them explicitly. In his presidential address on behavior at a choice point, Tolman inserts one of Hull’s serial conditioning diagrams (11, p. 13) between the independent variables (maintenance schedule, goal object, etc.) and the dependent variable (‘behavior ratio’) to illustrate his concept of the intervening variable. This would seem to imply that Tolman views his ‘intervening variables’ as of the same character as Hull’s. In view of this, it is somewhat surprising to discover that Skinner apparently feels that his formulations have a close affinity to those of Tolman, but are basically dissimilar to those of Hull (10, p. 436, 437). In advocating a theoretical structure which is ‘descriptive’ and ‘positivistic,’ he suggests that the model chosen by Hull (Newtonian mechanics) is not the most suitable model for purposes of behavior theory; and in general is critical of the whole postulate-deductive approach. Simultaneously with these trends, one can still observe among ‘tough-minded’ psychologists the use of words such as ‘unobservable’ and ‘hypothetical’ in an essentially derogatory manner, and an almost compulsive fear of passing beyond the direct colligation of observable data. ‘Fictions’ and ‘hypothetical entities’ are sometimes introduced into a discussion of theory with a degree of trepidation and apology quite unlike the freedom with which physicists talk about atoms, mesons, fields, and the like. There also seems to be a tendency to treat all hypothetical constructs as on the same footing merely because they are hypothetical; so that we find people arguing that if neutrons are admissible in physics, it must be admissible for us to talk about, e.g., the damming up of libido and its reversion to earlier channels. The view which theoretical psychologists take toward intervening variables and hypothetical constructs will of course profoundly influence the direction of theoretical thought. Furthermore, what kinds of hypothetical constructs we become accustomed to thinking about will have a considerable impact upon theory creation. The present paper aims to present what seems to us a major problem in the conceptualization of intervening variables, without claiming to offer a wholly satisfactory solution. Chiefly, it is our aim here to make a distinction between two subclasses of intervening variables, or we prefer to say, between ‘intervening variables’ and ‘hypothetical constructs’ which we feel is fundamental but is currently being neglected. We shall begin with a common-sense distinction, and proceed later to formulations of this distinction which we hope will be more rigorous. Naively, it would seem that there is a difference in logical status between constructs which involve the hypothesization of an entity, proc-
948 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the notion of material adequacy of a definition of truth is defined as follows: if all these equivalences follow from it, then the definition is true if, and only if, p.X is true.
Abstract: X is true if, and only if, p. [...] we shall call a definition of truth “adequate” if all these equivalences follow from it. [...] The definition of truth which was outlined above [...] implies all equivalences of the form (T). In this connnection it is important to notice that the conditions for the material adequacy of the definition determine uniquely the extension of the term “true.” Therefore, every definition of truth which is materially adequate would necessarily be equivalent to that actually constructed. The semantic conception of truth gives us, so to speak, no possibility of choice between variaous non-equivalent definitions of this notion..
940 citations
TL;DR: This article present a conceptual framework for organizing and relating terms that pertain to select knowledge constructs, which is intended to clarify terms and the associations among them, and to articulate definitional statements for these knowledge terms.
Abstract: Terms used to designate knowledge constructs have proliferated in the literature and often seem to duplicate, subsume, or contradict one another. In this article, we present a conceptual framework for organizing and relating terms that pertain to select knowledge constructs. We begin with an examination of the literature. Based on that review, we build a framework that is intended to clarify terms, and the associations among them, and to articulate definitional statements for these knowledge terms. Finally, we consider the importance of this theoretical undertaking for future research in cognition and in learning.
714 citations