Panu Raatikainen

"Complexity" is a catchword of certain extremely popular and rapidly developing interdisciplinary new sciences, often called accordingly the sciences of complexity. It is often closely associated with another notably popular but ambiguous word, "information"; information, in turn, may be justly called the central new concept in the whole 20th century science. Moreover, the notion of information is regularly coupled with a key concept of thermodynamics, viz. entropy. And like this was not enough it is quite usual to add one more at present extraordinarily popular notion, namely chaos, and wed it with the abovementioned concepts. It is my aim in this paper to critically analyse this conceptual mess from a logical and philosophical point of view concentrating on the concepts of complexity and information and the question concerning the true relation between them.

Roads to Reference: An Essay on Reference Fixing in Natural Language by Mario Gómez-Torrente provides an ample attack against certain more recent variants of descriptivism in the theory of reference. The book discusses a wide variety of expressions, but the focus of this short note is on proper names and natural kind terms. In the case of proper names, indeterminacy plays an important role in Gómez-Torrente’s critical argument. Some questions related to it are raised. As to natural kind terms, the differences between ordinary kind terms and scientific kind terms are discussed, and the somewhat ignored relevance of reference borrowing for natural kind terms is emphasized.

It has sometimes been suggested that the so-called new theory of reference (NTR) would provide an alternative picture of meaning and reference which avoids the unwelcome consequences of the meaning-variance thesis and incommesurability. However, numerous philosophers of science have been quite critical towards the idea and NTR in general. It is argued that many of them have an over-simplified and, in part, mistaken understanding of what NTR amounts to. It is submitted that NTR, when correctly understood, can be an important ingredient in the realist toolkit for defending the rationality of science.

Tiedepolitiikkaa on hallinnut ajatus, että rahankäyttöä voidaan tehostaa ja tutkimuksen laatua parantaa kilpailuttamalla, arvioimalla ja keskittämällä rahoitus huippututkimukselle. Huippututkimuksen ajatellaan edellyttävän suuria tutkimusryhmiä. Lisäksi rahoitusta keskitetty yhä enemmän tieteidenvälisille hankkeille. Kirjoituksessa tarkastellaan näitä trendejä kriittisesti viimeaikaisen tieteentutkimuksen ja tieteenfilosofian parhaan tiedon valossa. Näyttää siltä, että suosittu politiikka ei johda toivottuihin lopputuloksiin.

Nykyaikaisen logiikan keskeisenä tutkimuskohteena ovat erilaiset formalisoidut teoriat. Erityisesti vuosisadan vaihteen aikoihin matematiikan perusteiden tutkimuksessa ilmaantuneiden hämmentävien paradoksien (Russell 1902, 1903) jälkeen (ks. kuitenkin jo Frege 1879, Dedekind 1888, Peano 1889; vrt. Wang 1957) keskeiset matemaattiset teoriat on pyritty tällaisten vaikeuksien välttämiseksi uudelleen muotoilemaan täsmällisesti keinotekoisessa symbolikielessä, jonka lauseenmuodostussäännöt on täsmällisesti ja yksikäsitteisesti määrätty. Edelleen teoriat on pyritty aksiomatisoimaan, ts. on pyritty antamaan joukko peruslauseita, joista kaikki muut - tai ainakin mahdollisimman monet - teorian todet lauseet voidaan loogisesti johtaa tarkoin määrättyjen päättelysääntöjen mukaisesti (erityisesti Hilbert 1904, 1918, 1927; ks. myös Russell 1908, Zermelo 1908; vrt. Kleene 1952, §§ 14−15).

The essay exa­mines the views expressed in von Wright's Explanation and Understanding (1971) on human action and historical events from the perspective of the recent philosophy of science. Connecting causal explanation tightly to covering laws, as von Wright does, is found to be problematic, and his Logical connection argument invalid. On the other hand, von Wright's sketched theory of causation which is based on the concept of manipulation proves to be on the right track in light of current knowledge. From this perspective, however, there is no obstacle for explaining human action causally. This is illustrated with two examples from historical research. Finally, von Wright's idea that a complete account of the historical past is never achieved, because the past can always be re-evaluated, is briefly discussed.

Gödel's two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic. There have been attempts to apply the results also in other areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these attempted applications are more controversial. The present entry surveys the two incompleteness theorems and various issues surrounding them.

Several philosophers including Kripke have contended that fictional entities do exist as abstract objects, and fictional names refer to such abstract entities. Kripke and Thomasson compare fictional entities to existing social entities. Kripke also reflects on fictions inside fictions to support his view. Many philosophers appeal to the apparent fact that we quantify over fictional entities. Such arguments in favor of the existence of fictional entities are critically scrutinized. It is argued that they are much less compelling than their proponents suggest and involve various obscurities.

Kiinnostukseni kohteena seuraavassa on tietty suosittu ”intellektualistinen” käsitys kielen ja käsitteiden oppimisesta ja ymmärtämisestä. Käsitys on sinällään hyvin periteinen, ja voidaan väittää, että se on ollut ainakin piilevästi sisäänrakennettuna useiden uuden ajan filosofien teorioissa. Jätän tämän väitteen tarkemman erittelyn kuitenkin filosofian historioitsijoiden selvitettäväksi, ja keskityn seuraavassa käsityksen enemmän tai vähemmän julkilausuttuihin ilmentymiin nykyajan filosofiassa. Se on vaikuttanut monissa vaikutusvaltaisissa lähestymistavoissa kieleen, merkitykseen ja mieleen.

In 1980 a very interesting exchange of views between three distinguished philosophers took place. Two years earlier Armstrong had, in his already classical two-volume book on universals (Armstrong 1978a, 1978b), mentioned, in passing, Quinean positions as ”Ostrich or Cloak-anddagger Nominalism”, by which he referred to philosophers who refuse to countenance universals but who at the same time see no need for any reductive analysis. In the symposium in question (’Symposium: Nominalism’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61 (1980)), Michael Devitt defended vigorously the Quinean position and attacked Armstrong’s view (Devitt 1980); Armstrong naturally replied (Armstrong 1980), and Quine himself joined in with a short note (Quine 1980a). But interesting as these contributions are, the opinions have not exactly converged