[lit-ideas] Re: A thought for the coming year

  • From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 19:02:03 -0330

Many thanks to Donal for his/her very respectful reply to one of my posts and
well-mannered offering of corrections to it. Donal should feel free to uncross
his/her fingers and legs at this time. I am happy to see that some of us
have made some important resolutions for the New Year. (I won't tell you mine
since you all will no doubt insist that I keep them.)

Donal is quite justified in her/his lament that I misrepresent his/her position
in saying that (s)he agrees with me that no counter-example is possible to
rebut JTB theory. Donal had qualified his/her position with the condition "only
if we accept JTB theory as a stipulative definition of k-that" and I had
omitted to append that mitigating condition in representing his/her position in
my post. Izvinyayus. 

But at the end of the day, I don't see that this qualification goes very far in
settling the dispute between us. And this because I don't think JTB theory
offers a stipulative definition of k-that. Or if it does, I see no problem with
it. 

I have it from an unimpeachable source - Wiki E itself - that a stipulative
definition is simply one that is not formulated in accordance with or governed
by normal or prior usage of the term or expression being defined. Well, like
hello, if we were to rid ourselves of all terms and expressions used in
philosophy which contravened established cultural usage, we would end up with a
lexicon half the size of Hemingway's. And we philosophers would find ourselves
unemployed. (Not that that's an argument, mind you.)

But there's more. A "stipulative definition" connotes a certain arbitrariness
indefinition - as if other definitions could serve equally as well or be
equally
valid. But the JTB account of k-that isn't like that, I don't think. The
account cogently provides a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the
correct attribution of k-that. Donal insists (s)he has provided us with
examples falsifying this claim. I cannot see why (s)he says that, as I believe
I have successfully riposted to all examples posted by people attempting to
offer arguments as to the falsity or incorrectness of JTB theory. This includes
all of Donal's high-powered examples from the realm of post-Newtonian science.

To conclude my brief, I want to say that I don't think that Einstein brewed up
only a "tempest in a teapot." (I pause in my reflections to note that a
"tempest in a teapot" is not equivalent to a "teapot of tempest.") I believe
Einstein may well have latched onto something really important :). But I also
believe that Aristotle finally got something right when he claimed that criteria
of empirical truth and normative rightness must be formulated in light of the
particular contexts to which they are to apply. (He messed up on the moral
rightness part, but that's a different movie.)

Definitely over his limit for the day,

Walter O
MUN (closed due to weather)


Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> If this gets through the chains, it may answer O.K.'s last question.
> 
> 
> Clearly eminent
> figures like Popper do not think Einstein’s physics or Newton’s physics a
> mere
> “tempest within a teapot” and do not think we can properly grasp
> Einsteinian
> versus Newtonian physics and yet rightly conclude that, philosophically
> speaking, this dispute between two intellectual giants is a mere “tempest
> within
> a teapot”. My hunch is that (whether wittingly or unwittingly) both Richard
> and
> Walter appear to take a stance that is dismissive of Einstein’s physics as
> a
> mere “tempest within a teapot” (though if unwittingly, they may not
> consider
> their stance this way): for we still await explanation of how “Donal’s
> concerns” can here be a mere “tempest within a teapot” without the
> significance
> of Einstein’s physics (which Donal is concerned to stress) also being a
> mere
> “tempest within a teapot”? 
>  
> But first there
> is a more straightforward issue to clarify given that Walter states what he
> takes to be Donal’s position as follows:
> "Donal's
> admission that no counter-example is available to rebut JTB theory
> concurs with my view. I am happy to receive that admission. His subsequent
> lament that unfortunately this admission "leads to a dead end in terms of
> substantive discussion" betrays an odd adherence to a pragmatist ideal
> that
> does not sit well with Donal's insistence, directed to Richard, that we need
> to
> distinguish between the usefulness of a theory and its truth."
>  
> But Donal did
> not admit there is no counter-example to rebut JTB theory:- and so it is not
> accurate or fair to report this. Donal admitted there is no counter-example
> to
> rebut JTB theory where JTB theory is defended by stipulation. That
> crucial proviso was spelt out in Donal's post though it is omitted in
> Walter’s:
> and Donal also made clear that this inability to rebut is not because there
> is
> any great merit in JTB theory but because nothing
> defended by stipulation can be rebutted by counter-example. It is immunising
> one's views to counter-example by way of stipulation that "leads to a dead
> end in terms of substantive discussion": and so Walter is neither accurate
> nor fair in suggesting that what "leads to a dead end in terms of
> substantive discussion" has something to do with Donal’s "odd adherence
> to a pragmatist ideal". 
>  
> Moreover, Donal’s
> position on stipulative arguments has been set out before and even rehashed
> (e.g. in the context of whether machines
> can or cannot think): not only should that position have been clear to
> someone
> like Walter who participated in those previous threads but it should be
> obvious
> that Donal’s position is that the fact there is no counter-example to a
> stipulative version of JTB theory is merely because there is no
> counter-example
> to any ‘theory’ defended by stipulation and not because there is no
> counter-example to JTB theory otherwise.
> 
> 
> Walter’s
> version of Donal’s position leads Donal to repeat what she or he had
> thought
> had been made clear several times before as to his or her position.
>  
> Also for the
> record:- Donal has in recent posts been offering the falsity of Newton's
> physics (yet its merits as "knowledge") as a counter-example to the
> idea that there cannot be "false knowledge" - and thus as a
> counter-example to JTB theory insofar as JTB theory denies there can be
> "false knowledge". Far from admitting “that no counter-example is
> available to rebut JTB theory”, those posts have attempted to illustrate a
> counter-example. (Somehow, again, all this seems to have passed Walter by.)
> 
> 
> Given what
> Donal has actually posted, Donal hopes it not impolite to suggest that it
> cannot be accurate or fair to report "Donal's admission that no
> counter-example is available to rebut JTB theory.” And might it not be
> thought
> entirely lacking in manners to whisperingly suggest that this kind of
> shortcoming
> in substantive terms is perhaps more serious a concern in discussion than
> mere (alleged)
> lack of academic manners?
> Donal
> Crossing his or her fingers and legs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, 29 December 2013, 20:47, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>  
> Btw, has Prometheus McE. been released from the chains ? :)  O.K.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:51 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>  
> Granted that our measurement of time is conventional, this doesn't mean that
> time itself is just an invention. Our measurement of length is also
> conventional (some use meters and others feet, eg) does that mean that length
> is also an invention ?
> 
> In fact, our measurement of time is not wholly arbitrary, eg a day is based
> on the time it takes the Earth to revolve around its orbit, a year is based
> on the time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun etc. Granted, an
> intelligent species living on a different planet in a different solar system
> would very likely use different measurement. Would they no conception of time
> at all ? I am guessing that they would probably have some.
> 
> O.K.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:38 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
>  
> I guess I failed to make myself clear. There is no relativization involved in
> a
> Constructivist conception of time (or justice or moral rightness, or pizza).
> On
> standard, public forms of its measurement, you *are* the chronological age
> you
> are as determined by that measurement. There's no avoiding it. And there's
> nothing essentially contestable about it. 
> 
> On this, I agree with Rorty (may the saints preserve me): if
>  there is no
> external, independent reality an sich to which we are epistemically required
> to
> conform, adequayte,
>  correspond, prostate ourselves before, then the claim that
> one is a relativist for failing to do so is at best false, and at worst,
> unintelligible. In between we have begging the question. 
> 
> (Sorry, OK, but sometimes the truth is the best therapy. Just remember,
> you're
> as young as you feel.) 
> 
> 26 yrs old, and having the courage to accept the fact,
> 
> Walter O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> > I suppose that most of us are all old enough to wish to relativize the
> > passing time as far as possible, if not to do away with it
>  altogether. :)
> > 
> > O.K.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sunday, December 29, 2013 7:57 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >  
> > Well, when I asked RP to articulate for us his conception of a thought, I
> was
> > not thinking he would simply compile a number of examples of "thought" or
> > "thinking. From these examples proffered, we see that the terms, as
> > understood
> > by RP can refer to:
> > 
> > 1. an argument
> > 2. a belief
> > 3. a thought dreamt (this one sort of begs the question, I would think)
> > 4. a
>  decision made or report on a decision made
> > 5. a phenomenon or word to which "weird" could be attributed
> > 6. an activity
> > 
> > and probably much more that escapes my perusal of RP's list.
> > 
> > But RP must still be firmly ensconced in the lap of family and friends
> since
> > he
> > resists the labour of the concept called for by  the philosophical
> question
> > I
> > posed. 
> > 
> > In order to adequately answer that question, he is required to provide us
> not
> > with a laundry-list, a bag, of examples of "thought"/"thinking" but rather
> > with
> > the criteria he deploys in identifying all these examples as examples *of*
> > "thought"/"thinking." RP surely must be in
>  possession of such criteria, else
> > he
> > would not be able to differentiate "thought"/"thinking" from anything else
> in
> > the world (i.e., pizza, doggy-bags, birdfeeders, a 40 yr old Highland Park)
> > and
> > thus would be unable to identify some things and events as "examples." 
> > 
> > Awaiting, glass in hand, RP's arousal from domestic slumbers and the
> > provision
> > of his set of necessary and sufficient conditions ... and for Christmas,
> > (Hristos Voskresye!)
> > 
> > Walter O
> > 
> > P.S.  Socrates 5, Wittgenstein 0.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>:
> > 
> > > Gualterus dicit,
> > > 
> > > Now that RP has seen fit to return to his philosophical saddle, after an
> > > inexcusably extended period of silence indulging relations with
> > > immediate family and friends, perhaps he could explain to us his
> > > conception of a "thought"? (If it's a mere stipulative definition,
> > > allowing for no counter-examples, then of course we want no truck with
> > > it.)
> > > 
> > > *I once thought Descartes spoke Chinese because there were Chinese
> > > ideograms on his dressing gown. I’ve since learned that this
> thought
> > > was mistaken; that is,
>  that I was mistaken in thinking that.
> > > 
> > > ‘Have you seen Huygenson, this afternoon?’
> > > 
> > > ‘I think I saw him going into his office just a few minutes ago
> (Newton
> > > time).’
> > > 
> > > ‘I had this strange dream: I thought I was to read a paper at the
> > > annual Toot Baldon philosophy gathering, but when I reached the place
> > > shown on the invitation, nobody had heard of Toot Baldon.
> > > 
> > > ‘Methinks I will.’
> > > 
> > > ‘Believe me, that guy has some really weird thoughts.’
> > > 
> > > ‘People used to think that whales were fish.’
> > > 
> > > ‘I am
>  doing something. I’m thinking. And it’s hard.’ [Reply
> by one
> > of
> > > my former professors when his wife accused him of sitting around all
> > > day doing nothing.]
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
—————————————————————————————————
> > > 
> > > I ask because I would have thought that a sentence with all them
> > > commas and semi-colons harbours more than a single thought.
> > > 
> > > And would there be a couple of claims to "k-that" in all of that? If so,
> do
> > > they
>  satisfy the necessary conditions?
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
—————————————————————————————————
> > > 
> > > *I think there are e.g. that
> > > 
> > > ‘Absolute, true, and mathematical time, from its own nature, passes
> > > equably without relation to anything external, and thus without
> > > reference to any change or way of measuring of time (e.g., the hour,
> > > day, month, or year).'
> > > 
> > > ...but whether they satisfy condition DM, I'm not certain.
> >
>  > 
> > > Robert Paul
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit
>  www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: