In Italian, it's "part.", not 'detail' -- but the Oxford says that 'detail' was
used by King Alfred, so there!
In my previous "Popper and Grice on conceptual analysis" I focused on McEvoy's
noun "analysis" in his phrase "detailed analysis". In this one, I'll go passage
by passage through what he wrote, focusing on the adjective, "detailed".
McEvoy:
"Among the issues we might otherwise discuss is the alleged failure of Popper
to provide "detailed analysis" or do detailed work (of a kind beloved by some
analytic philosophers)."
Note that "detailed analysis" occurs in a disjunctive clause ("this or that").
In both disjuncts, 'detailed' occurs, so I take that McEvoy's focus is on
detail, rather than analysis.
"This was long ago the complaint of JL Mackie in his review of Popper's Schilpp
volumes,"
Oddly, H. P. Grice focused on J. L. Mackie's Penguin book when he delivered the
first Paul Carus lecture -- Mackie's "Inventing right and wrong". Mackie was
what Grice called a 'colonial', but Oxford-educated. He LOVED Mackie.
McEvoy:
"and it resurfaces in the review of this Cambridge Companion."
This is odd, since the second disjunct mentions "analytic philosophers," and
Cambridge philosophers, just to be different, may NOT so easily embrace the
Oxford-type of philosophical analysis.
McEvoy:
"There is something to this charge: for example, (1) Popper does not present a
detailed working out of how his theory of World 1, 2 and 3 would apply to
explain to a given experience, such as writing (or reading) this post;"
Here "detailed" applies to 'working out' of this or that. Interesting.
"(2) Popper does not present his theory of democracy in a way that provides a
detailed working out of what would be the preferred voting systems, or the
balance of powers between executive-legislature-judiciary (Popper did write a
late period essay against proportional representation, a very fine one, and one
that drew on his account of democracy - but it did not follow analytically from
that account, and was not based on 'analytic' but largely practical
considerations)"
Here again it's 'detailed working out' -- and the final parts of the passage
make a passing mention to what I focused in my previous post, the 'anaytic'.
McEvoy:
"(3) Popper does not present sets of detailed workings out of how the logic of
falsificationism applies to clarify the workings of actual scientfiic practice."
Like in (1) and (2), here it is 'detailed working out' of this and that. As
opposed to an Undetailed working out, I suppose. Questionnaire for Geary: who
is the most undetailed philosopher ("Sartre, of course.")
McEvoy:
"Yet there is a defence also for this so-called 'lack of detail'."
So-called by McEvoy or is this a reference to the Cambridge book? The Italians
call this 'particolare'. As in "Mona Lisa (part.)". The idea is that details
are important. In fact, I LOVE to see 'details' or particulars of this or that
painting. "Lack of detail" can be taken LITERALLY. ("His prose is very
undetailed" sounds harsh, but it may relate to Witters's craving for
generalities, which he ascribed to ALL philosophers, or to Isaiah Berlin and
the fox who knows ONE THING but no details about nothing.
McEvoy:
"It is part of Popper's aim to stick to big ideas and not get lost in
comparatively unimportant detail."
Here 'comparatively' is a logical adverb: compared to a big idea, detail is
obviously unimportant. I'm never so sure. When Da Vinci painted "Mona Lisa,"
little did he know that the marvel would be in the detail of her smile. Vide
Julia Roberts, and Cole Porter, "You're the tops, you're the smile on the Mona
Lisa").
McEvoy:
"Moreover, Popper is too rational to shore up big ideas with spurious support
in the form of details (when such details might provide a convincing appearance
but rationally do not support the idea being advanced as against its
alternatives)."
Here it's plural: 'details'. This is interesting. Consider "Jones told me the
story in detail" sounds okay. "Jones told me the story in details" sounds
redundant.
McEvoy:
"To return to example (3), even a detailed set of analyses of actual examples
of scientific debates, in terms of a falsificationist methodology, would not
show that those examples were not consistent with an alternative inductive
account - it might just be spurious to think such detailed examination provided
'rational grounds' for falsificationist methodology (as opposed to the
arguments that _the logic_ of such a methodology does not raise problems of
logical validity that attend its inductive alternatives)."
Were we are mixing -- as per my previous post -- 'detail' with 'analysis' and
while McEvoy does not use 'detailed analysis' he uses "deetailed SET of
analyses".
McEvoy:
"It is also true that Popper prefers to work on big ideas and leave certain
kinds of detailed examination to others (of course much detailed examination
goes into Popper's work, but without it then being presented as if the result
of such detailed examination _instead it is presented in terms of key
arguments_)."
Here 'detailed' is applied to 'examination'. Perhaps 'case' is what I am having
in mind. Casuistic or case study -- or case by case illustrations. Those would
be 'detailed examination'."
McEvoy:
"If the devil is in the detail, then Popper prefers to leave plenty of work for
the devil."
Or God.
"God is in the detail" has been attributed to a number of different
individuals, most notably to German-born architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe by
The New York Times.
Oddly, Mrs. van der Rohe was an atheist.
However, the phrase is generally accepted NOT to have originated with Mies van
der Rohe (or her atheistic wife).
The expression appears to have been a favourite of German art historian Aby
Warburg, though Warburg's biographer, E.M. Gombrich, is likewise uncertain if
it originated with Warburg.
("It is possible that he heard it in the streets. He frequented the oddest of
streets").
For what is worth, an earlier form, "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail" ("the GOOD
God is in the detail") is attributed to Gustave Flaubert, a rather famous
French author.
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations lists the saying's author as anonymous -- which
hardly helps.
("I use the phrase 'anonymous' when I have no idea where the familiar quotation
originates. Still, as my aunt advisees me, "You can still call them
'familiar'").
The phrase has several variants: (The/A) Devil (is) in the Detail(s).
The original expression as, "God is in the detail" most likely had the
expression ending with "detail" (without an "s"), colloquial usage often ends
the idiom as "details"; where the word "detail" without an "s" can be used as
both a singular and collective noun -- as in 'pizza'.
However, the SINGULAR word "detail" has evolved to mean other terms in some
cultures, such as a military security detail as a duty assignment, or detailing
a car as cleaning or polishing a vehicle ("to detail"), and so the plural form,
"details" has been used to more clearly indicate the finer points of a topic.
On top, Geary pluralises the devils: the devils ARE in the details. (His
eschatology is complex).
More recently, the expressions "Governing (is) in the Detail(s)" and "(The)
Truth (is) in the Detail(s)" have appeared.
McEvoy:
"But it is also true that Popper presents key ideas without always indicating
where he stands on certain resultant questions. For example, as to the
'ontological status' of World 3, as some philosophers might call it, we do not
get a detailed answer in Popper's works."
Here 'detailed' is applied to 'answer'. This is analysed by Grice in terms of
conversational maxims:
A: Are you going to miss Uncle Ted and Aunt Agatha?
B: I'm going to miss Aunt Agatha.
The implicature seems to be that sine the answer is not 'detailed', there is a
"suggestio_falsi."
McEvoy:
instead Popper writes, for example, (1) that he is not offering an ontology (2)
that World 3 content exists but in a sense exists "nowhere". This is far from
entirely satisfactory."
I.e. not detailed enough.
"Again though, there is a defence that can be made for this drawing back from
these kinds of issue, including that it is not possible to give entirely
satisfactory answers to such issues."
Satisfactory answers: detailed answers?
"We should take with a large grain of salt claims that various of Popper's
theories have been outpaced by historical developments e.g. that his theory of
demoracy is outmoded given the problems faced by modern democracies, or his
theory of scientific method is outmoded given more modern developments, or that
his theory of World 3-2-1 has been overturned by some or other development in
some or other field. What is true is that Popper's theories leave unaddressed
many detailed problems, and that while some such supposed problems may be
misconceived (e.g. the alleged disconnect between 'the people' and their
democratic representatives) some are very important, and may even be so
important that their answer inclines us to theories quite different from
Popper's.”
There is a portrait of Popper in the cover of the Cambridge book. If one look
at the details one learns quite a bit.
Similarly, there is a portrait of Grice at Merton in Oxford. The details show
that the photographer knew what he was doing.
"Detail" is not perhaps a philosophical piece of lexicon. The etymology should
help.
While used by King Alfred in Anglo-Saxon, 'detail' itself comes from c. 1600,
from French "detail," from Old French "detail," meaning "small piece or
quantity," literally "a cutting in pieces," from detaillier "cut in pieces,"
from de- "entirely" (see de-) + taillier "to cut in pieces" (see tailor).
So we have a noun coming from a verb. Strictly, to detail is to entirely cut
into pieces. The French do not specify WHAT they are cutting.
Modern sense is from French "en detail," "piece by piece, item by item" (as
opposed to "en gros").
And I say this is not a piece of philosophical lexicon in that it is a
commercial term used where we would today use "retail" -- but 'retailed
analysis' sounds 'en gros'.
The miliarty use of 'detail' is 1708, from the notion of "distribution in
detail of the daily orders first given in general," including assignment of
specific duties. The fact that Grice, qua captain of the Royal Navy, and unlike
Popper followed specific orders -- helps.
Cheers,
Speranza
