Elegance and Parsimony in First-order Necessitism

Auteurs

DOI : https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon.568451
Mots-clés : necesitismo, elegancia, parsimonia, fórmulas Barcan, objetos contingentemente non concretos

Organismes de soutien

  • Esta investigación ha sido posible gracias al apoyo del Ministerio de Universidades de España a través del programa nacional FPU (referencia de la ayuda: FPU19/00199) y se inscribe en el Proyecto de Investigación “Concepciones deflacionarias en ontología y metaontología” (referencia: PID2020-115482GB-100).

Résumé

Abstract: In his book Modal Logic as Meta- physics, Timothy Williamson defends first-order necessitism using simplicity as a powerful argument. However, simplicity is decomposed into two different, even antagonistic, sides: elegance and parsimony. On the one hand, elegance is the property of theories possessing few and simple principles that allow them to deploy all their theoretical power; on the other hand, parsimony is the property of theories having the fair and necessary number of ontological entities that allow such theories give an account of themselves. Since necessitism endorses Barcan Formulae for the sake of elegance, it is committed to a vast number of contingently non-concrete objects, so one may think that it is not qualitatively parsimonious. I argue that necessitism could be viewed as an additive case in the sense that Alan Baker characterizes the adjective, so quantitative parsimony should be considered when it comes to necessitism instead of qualitative parsimony.

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.
Métriques
Vues/Téléchargements
  • Résumé
    59
  • PDF
    7
  • HTML
    1

Références

Aquinas, T. (1945). Basic Writing of St. Thomas Aquinas. A. C. Pegis (trans.). New York: Random House.

Aristotle (1941). Posterior Analytics, in The Basic Works of Aristotle. R. Mackeon (trans.). New York: Random House.

Baker, A. (2003). “Quantitative Parsimony and Explanatory Power”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54 (2), pp. 245 – 259. doi: 10.1093/bjps/54.2.245

Baker, A. (2022). “Simplicity”. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Ed.). URL= https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/ simplicity/.

Barcan (Marcus), R. (1946). “A Functional Calculus of First Order Based On Strict Implication”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11 (1), pp. 1 – 16. doi: 10.2307/2269159. Duhem, P. (1906). La théorie physique, son objet et sa structure. Paris: Chevalier et Rivière. Kant, I. (1950). The Critique of Pure Reason. N. Kemp Smith (trans.). New York: Humanities Press.

Newton, I. (1964). The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica). New York: Citadel Press.

Nolan, D. (1997). “Quantitative Parsimony” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48 (3): 329 – 342. doi: 10.1093/bjps/48.3.329

Quine, W. (1966). “Simple Theories of a Complex World”. In Ways of Paradox. New York: Random House: 242 – 246.

Russell, B. (1951). Mysticism and Logic. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Sober, E. (2011). “What is the Problem of Simplicity”. In Zellner et al. (Eds.), Simplicity, Inference, and Modelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 13 – 32. Williamson, T. (2013). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Publiée
01-05-2026
Comment citer
Conde, V. (2026). Elegance and Parsimony in First-order Necessitism . Daimon, (98), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon.568451
Numéro
Rubrique
Artículos