[Wittrs] Re: The Tactical Paraphrase: From Fallacy to Factuality
- From: Rajasekhar Goteti <rgoteti@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:09:21 +0530 (IST)
Six Learnings FrameworkThe “Six Learnings Framework” is a pedagogical outline
developed for virtual world education in general. It sets out 6 possible ways
to view an educational activity.[12]Exploring: learners explore a virtual
world’s locations and communities as fieldwork for class.Collaborating:
learners work together within a virtual world on collaborative tasks.Being:
learners explore themselves and their identity through their presence in a
virtual world, such as through role play.Building: learners construct objects
within a virtual world.Championing: learners promote real life causes through
activities and presentations in a virtual world.Expressing: learners represent
activities within a virtual world to the outside world, through blogs,
podcasts, presentations and videos.Language (platform) to intellectuality is a
dualistic process with no doubt.Language is an interactive principle plies in
between known and unknown. sekhar
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Wittrs] The Tactical Paraphrase: From Fallacy to Factuality
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, 5 May, 2010, 3:52 PM
SWM wrote:
>I suggest those "who came in late" read the actual original exchange
>you and I had and then read Dennett's text which is transcribed onto
>this list. (He does go on to mention the implication of that as being a
>believe in an "immortal soul" but that is to show why one needs to be
>careful in embracing such a Searlean view, to wit, one finds oneself on
>the same wavelength as believers in souls and immortality, etc.)
I doubt that other list members will want to research the archives just
to settle a dispute over who has the more accurate account of thread
history; but, of course, they are free to do so.
OTOH, it is possible that others might be willing to provide some
feedback concerning the tactical aspects of your so-called paraphrase of
Dennett's text.
the facts appear to be undisputed.
the text reads something like Cartesian dualists believe that more of
the same will not produce understanding; but, your 'paraphrase'
interprets the text as if it read 'only Cartesian dualists believe that
more of the same will not produce understanding'.
this interpolation results in a claim whose logical properties are very
different from those of Dennett's actual text.
the text would be symbolized as
[1] C -> X [being a Cartesian dualist entails believing X (in this case
that more of the same will not produce understanding)]
the paraphrase would be symbolized as
[2] X -> C [believing X entails being a Cartesian dualist]
it is undisputed that Searle believes X.
drawing the conclusion 'Searle is a Cartesian dualist' from this fact
plus [1] is a fallacy (affirming the consequent).
drawing the conclusion 'Searle is a Cartesian dualist' from this fact
plus [2] is a valid move (modus ponens).
hence, the tactical effect of 'paraphrasing' the text as if it read [2]
instead of [1] is to turn fallacy into factuality
* * *
so, fellow list members, one question: does Stuart's paraphrase change
the meaning of the text?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
