Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 112 ff (Summary)
Sign/Laws of Nature/LoN: There is no sign for the law of gravity! Phenomena are only clues!.
Sign/E.g. Black Clouds: there must be a true inductive generalization, probability.
Sign/Armstrong: it is not necessary for a sign to act as a sign. There are signs that no one can read, and signs that are read by no one!.
Designated: like the sign always a particulate fact. There is no sign for the general! (I.e. neither for the validity of laws of nature!).
Vs: there are counter-E.g. against this simple definition of sign, however:
Signs/Indications: E.g. a certain disease is almost always fatal. You would not say, however, that the disease is a sign of death.
Sign: Never cause! - But: E.g. black clouds: here it is not quite correct. But still, the fact that the clouds are black has nothing to do with the induction of rain! Those features of the sign due to which the thing in question is designated by the sign are not causally responsible.
Also with irregularity (error, deception - irony disregarded here) a statement is still a sign. A sign can say different things in different contexts anyway. E.g. in a very specific meteorological situation, black clouds could also be signs for something other than rain.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.