As noted above, another innovation of Logical Syntax is the Principle of Tolerance.
The principle of compositionality is not committed to a specific conception of meaning.
Like Huygens, Newton presents the relativity principle as a fundamental principle, “Law 3”:
Sometimes it is also called the “Resemblance Principle”, or the “Principle of Uniformity of Nature”.
One important distinction is between the harmful conduct principle (HCP) and the harm prevention principle (HPP):
When Bohr suggested that the correspondence principle might provide such a grounding for the exclusion principle, Pauli replied,
On Raz’s view, the harm principle is superceded by an autonomy principle that captures the truth in it while avoiding its exaggerations.
Problems with the Simple Principle (to be discussed below) have led many Bayesians to qualify the Simple Principle by limiting its scope.
Moreover, it deserves emphasis that there are inferences that apparently satisfy Pritchard’s principle but fail to satisfy the principle of epistemic transmission.
Even weak sufficiency implies that the harm principle must be supplemented with some other principle, such as the utilitarian principle, in order to determine if regulation is permissible, much less required.
But for present purposes our question is whether the harm principle is best understood to be an anti-perfectionist principle—a principle that provides reasons for rejecting or limiting perfectionist politics.
Fulfillment of the first principle takes priority over fulfillment of the second principle, and within the second principle fair equality of opportunity takes priority over the difference principle.
A version of the correspondence principle also lives on in the philosophical literature where it has been generalized into a broad methodological principle (the generalized correspondence principle) constraining the development of new scientific theories.
If Obscurity is true, it provides good reason to doubt justification accrued via a common sense epistemic principle, the Principle of Credulity (Swinburne 1998 states the problem of evil in terms of this principle, Swinburne 2001 explicates and defends the principle).
In the 1829 “Article on Utilitarianism” Bentham pointed to two later “improvements” to his understanding of the utility principle—the “disappointment-prevention principle” and the “greatest happiness principle” (a substitute for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” formula).
Note that throughout this entry, the following standard abbreviations are used: PC (Principle of Contradiction), PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason), PII (Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles), PIN (Predicate-in-Notion Principle), and CIC (Complete Individual Concept).
On one familiar view, we can know a priori the fundamental moral principle (or principles), e.g., the principle that one ought to perform the action that has the overall best consequences, or the principle that one ought to act in accordance with virtue, or whatever the basic moral principle really is.
In general and in a variety of ways, the principle of liberty sailing under the protection of the harm principle and the principle of utility end up after all at war with one another, and Utility simply cannot be guaranteed to underwrite as strong a principle of liberty as the harm principle.
Another worry is that because Buchak rejects the principle of maximizing expected utility and replaces it with the principle of risk-weighted maximizing expected utility, many of the stock objections decision theorists have raised against violations of the expected utility principle can be raised against her principle as well.
(P1) is a deontic principle of non-contradiction (RW IV, 264 f.); (P2) is the principle that “ought implies permitted” (RW I, 236); (P3) is a kind of combination principle for ought (RW I, 229 f.); (P4) is the “ought implies can” principle (RW I, 230, 257, RW IV, 214, and WL II, 348); and (P5) is a deontic entailment principle (RW I, 229, WL II, 339, 348).
- a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct
Example: their principles of composition characterized all their works
- a rule or standard especially of good behavior
Example: a man of principle
- a basic truth or law or assumption
Example: the principles of democracy
- a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system
Example: the principle of the conservation of mass
- rule of personal conduct
- (law) an explanation of the fundamental reasons (especially an explanation of the working of some device in terms of laws of nature)
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for principle. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
P1 is a deontic principle of non-contradiction RW IV 264 f P2 is the principle that ought implies permitted RW I 236 P3 is a kind of combination principle for ought RW I 229 f P4 is the ought implies can principle RW I 230 257 RW IV 214 and WL II 348 and P5 is a deontic entailment principle RW I 229 WL II 339 348