Grounding Qualitative Dimensions

  • Juan J. ColominaEmail author
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 23)


The purpose of this chapter is further complete an approach to Point of View (PoV) that could help us to set up a framework of evaluation and comparison. First, I introduce the notion of PoV as access in order to distinguish the model of accessing from other ways to understand PoV and then taking distance from purely relativist approaches. Second, I provide an explanation and development of some important notions introduced for the applicability of PoV. Third, since PoV allow setting a reference frame from where to evaluate the different objects accessed, I offer a comparison within PoV (independently of their different possible bearers). Since objects and states can be differently evaluated from different PoV, these will be considered as different qualitative dimensions of the world and its objects. They will serve as crucial elements of translation between all possible PoV, establishing degrees of comparison when the translation is not completely at hand.


State Function Physical World Qualitative Dimension Filter Function Relevant Determinant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Brandom, R. (1982). Points of view and practical reasoning. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12(2), 321–333.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnap, R. (1971). A basis system of inductive logic. In R. Carnap & R. C. Jeffrey (Eds.), Studies in inductive logic and probability (Vol. I, pp. 33–165). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charro, F., & Colomina, J. (2013). Points of view beyond models. Towards a formal approach to points of view as access to the world. Foundations of Science, 19(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fine, K. (2012). Guide to Ground. In F. Correia & B. Schneider (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding (pp. 8–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hautamäki, A. (1983). The logic of viewpoints. Studia Logica, 42(2–3), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hautamäki, A. (1983). Dialectics and points of view. Ajatus, 39(218), 231.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hautamäki, A. (1986). Points of view and their logical analysis (Vol. 41). Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hume, D. (1751). An enquiry into the sources of morals (J. Bennett (Ed.), An enquiry concerning the principles of morals, Trans.). Available in
  10. 10.
    Magnani, (2012). Scientific models are not fictions. Model-based science as epistemic warfare. In L. Magnani & P. Li (Eds.), Philosophy and cognitive science. Western and eastern studies (Vol. 2, pp. 1–38). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moline, J. (1968). On points of view. American Philosophical Quarterly, 5(3), 191–198.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Searle, J. (1959). Determinables and the notion of resemblance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suplemmentary, 33, 141–158.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yablo, S. (1992). Mental causation. The Philosophical Review, 101(2), 245–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vázquez, M., & Liz, M. (2011). Models as points of view: The case of system dynamics. Foundations of Science, 16(4), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations