[lit-ideas] Re: Alleged Circularity of Dispositional Analysis (was Donalling Donal)
- From: Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Paul)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 20 Nov 2004 12:39:28 PST
Donal has, I think, misunderstood what I was trying to say in the first
paragraph of my reply to him earlier.
I wrote:
This is surely wrong [that the evidence that A has a disposition to do x is that
A does x under certain circumstances] because a disposition to do x may be
non-actualised, so that despite the disposition to do x existing, x is not done.
To say someone has a disposition to do x is therefore not the same as saying
someone has done x.
Donal says that he did not say what is enclosed in square brackets above. I
never thought he did . The bracketed material was a paraphrase of what I had
said earlier and I included it to try to make clear to those whose attention
might have flagged just what he was claiming was 'surely wrong.'
I see that I should have written something like '[viz., that the evidence,
etc...]'
Robert Paul
Interpolating Popperians everywhere
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
