Perry's third objection is the nonsufficiency ofbelief. Consider the case of Hume and Heimson. Heimson believesthat he is Hume. But Heimson isn't just crazy, but also well informedabout every aspect of Hume's life. Still, Hume says something truewhen he utters the sentence ‘I wrote theTreatise’ and Heimson says something false. If so,then, by Truth, they say different things, despitethe similarity in their qualitative descriptive beliefs. Even thoughHeimson's descriptive beliefs about who he is best fit Hume, still hisself-thoughts are about Heimson and not Hume. The Fregean cannot,Perry claims, account for this.
The possibilist maintains that what actually exists is a proper subsetof what exists. So, while nothing in the domain of the actual worldcould have been Portman and Bush's child, there are things in the mostinclusive domain of quantification, which includes merely possibleindividuals, that are parented by Portman and Bush in some possibleworlds. On Plantinga's view, there is an uninstantiated individualessence that could have been instantiated and, had it beeninstantiated, it would have been instantiated by something that wasparented by Portman and Bush. On Linsky and Zalta's view, there is anonconcrete individual that could have been concrete and, had it beenconcrete, it would have been parented by Portman and Bush. All threeviews, then, seem to easily account for the truth of something closeto (8). (The last view must offer a slight revision of (8): While anonconcrete individual actually exists and could have been parented byPortman and Bush, nothing that is actually concrete could have beenparented by Portman and Bush.) Proponents of the last view consideredabove, however, do not countenance merely possible individuals,uninstantiated individual essences, nor contingently nonconcreteindividuals. Instead they must give a different account of the secondside of our intuitions that what exists is contingent.
Differences between proposition and hypothesis …
Bertrand Russell's views of language and thought areimportantly different from Frege's. (Russell held many distinctviews. We focus here on the Russell roughly from 1905 through 1912.)First, Russell held an acquaintance-based theory, according to whichsome thought about individuals is direct, in the sense of involvingsingular propositions involving those very individuals. Second,whereas Frege introduced senses to help solve the puzzles discussedabove, Russell employed logical analysis and his theory of definitedescriptions. We take each point in turn.
whats the difference between a hypothesis and a …
So we begin our exploration into gender differences and how these may relate to war by dismissing any idea that women are innately nicer or more nurturing than men…or for that matter, more moral. If in our search to understand our capacity for peace or war we find differences in how men and women use physical aggression and relate to war—and we will find differences—it won't be because women are sugar and spice and men aren't.
Argument | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
One possible biological explanation for this sex difference is the male primate urge to rise in rank. The rationale would be that when a male rises in rank within the group, he is able to mate with more females, thus spreading his seed as widely as possible.xi Joshua Goldstein, in War and Gender, reviewed data on the relationship between reproductive success and the obsession with dominance relationships in male primates. His analysis indicates that this hypothesis does not seem to be the explanation.xii Another hypothesis explaining this male urge for higher status is that it results in greater accesses to resources such as food or safe resting or sleeping sites.
What is the difference between Evidence and Proof
It's possible, even probable, that higher status conveys different advantages in different situations. Whatever the reason, men today in the vast majority of cultures still compete regularly to overturn the social order. They seek to rise in rank if possible or to avoid losing status, and generally across cultures they are much more inclined than are women to use physical aggression to do so. Male groups, unless restrained by police or strong social prohibitions , or both, fight to dominate other male groups. The overall result of these different biological pressures and priorities is that social stability is not as high a priority for men as it is for women.