[Wittrs] Re: How to Verify Wittgenstein
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
(reply to Bruce)
"You don't need evidence that in fact thought is sentence-like?"
Not anymore than someone who says "you are suppressing anger" and I find it to
be true. Let's assume scientists find one day that thought isn't sentence like.
What is it, Bruce, that would actually be found? And would it change the form
of life? As I talk to you right now, would anything be different?
Here is what I want to say: one who asks for evidence of the matter hasn't
understood it. It isn't a theory. There is nothing science could find that
could even affect the matter.
"But a therapy based on a false theory of how we think couldn't be helpful."
According to what, Bruce's law? Does your science say that? Is that a priori?
Seems like an ideology of therapy to me.
Here's the point: you are trying to use science as therapy. But the problem is
that, because it is only a counter-therapy, it, too, doesn't have to be
"true." What do you do if the matter is a growth science? Do you have any idea
how often science is wrong or changes course? Imagine a study finding, "science
says thoughts are sentence-like." If that came over your television, Bruce,
what in God's name would you do with it? The next time someone said "I have a
little man in my head," you would then show them the newspaper? This maneuver
would be dinner conversation, it wouldn't be insight. In fact, anyone who based
upon such a study said, "Wittgenstein was right," would really only be saying
"I didn't understand then, and I don't now."
"I don't dispute the premise that language is sentence like but want a specific
theory that is testable before I accept it as a fact. Is that inappropriate?"
Indeed. It is irrelevant. And it is peculiar that you believe a matter that
concerns the way you exist. but still seek journalism on the matter. It would
be like one saying "study proves there is an external world," in which case
you claimed to rest at ease.
"Are you suggesting that we already know "how minds are" and no further study
needed."
No, I'm saying that the matter is a lot like this. Two children see a ball. One
knows how to throw it, another doesn't. One day, one throws it to another. And
after several tries, it comes to the point where the other throws it back. One
would never ask in this situation, "but don't I need science to prove the
throwing?'
You apparently already know that you are throwing. You don't dispute the idea.
If you really wanted to confirm or dispute it, you would go about
Wittgensteinian method (therapy), not seek out a journalist.
==========================================
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
