What is supposed to be mythical about exclusive disjunction ? p or q and
not p and q. Seems completely reasonable to me, and even every day stuff.
(Jl is either in Rio or in London, but not both places at the same time.)
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza for DMARC <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know it's old news, but it was in Friday's New York Times, and I thought
it Griceian enough. James Gorman writes at
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/science/howler-monkey-species-deep-voice-testicle-size.html?_r=0
[i.] A study of howler monkeys found that to gain a mating advantage,
species evolved either to make very-low frequency sound, or have much
larger testicles, but none had both.
In Griceian logical terms:
ii. p w q
Now, Griceians speak of the 'myth' of exclusive disjunction, so the
logical form is rather:
iii. p v q
-- with the idea of exclusion merely a conversational implicature. Of
course Gorman (whose surname, "not for nothing" -- to use one of Geary's
favourite phrases; I learned it from him; I used to say, "not for anything"
-- but he retorted: "Double negatives won't bite," figuratively -- starts
with a "G", like Grice -- and Geary) has read his Grice (or his Geary) and
has CANCELLED that implicature, explicitly via the use of
iv. 'either'
and crucially
v. "but none had both".
Now, the use of the past, 'had' in (v) may alert Popper. For he has
written about evolution, and it may be that (v) is merely an empirical
discovery (Popper's first Austrian book was translated with the word
'discovery' in its title). In which case, it can safely be refudiated.
Cheers,
Speranza
