[lit-ideas] Re: Causal Theories alla Grice
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:36:35 +0100
Well, the historian is supposed to have good reasons to believe that the
Battle of Waterloo happened on that date, a high-school student is not. As
long as the student provides the expected answer, we are going to accept it
whatever its source, even if he heard it from his otherwise quite
unreliable girlfriend. (As long as it did not happen during the exam.)
Loosely speaking, we might also say something like: "I knew that it would
rain that day (i.e. I heard the prognosis) but it didn't." There is a limit
to how far a philosophical theory of knowledge can be expected to account
for such loose uses.
O.K.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My last post today!
>
> In a message dated 3/11/2015 5:13:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> Coming to examples such as: "The student knew [that] the date of the
> battle of Waterloo [was June 18, 1815]," this is really a very loose use
> of
> 'knew'
>
> Well, but I'm not surprised Grice chose an example from history, for he was
> interested in a "p" (in "A knows that p") which is contingent, synthetic,
> a posteriori -- unless it ain't. A philosopher of history was involved
> with
> the shape of the nose of Cleopatra. He knew that Cleopatra's nose was
> beautiful.
>
> He also knew that, had Cleopatra's nose not been so beautiful, the Roman
> Empire would have never taken place (because Mark Antony would never have
> betrayed Octavian nor be defeated at Actium).
>
> So, I recommend we replace 'student' by 'historian'. Recall, those who
> know, DO; those who don't, TEACH (or so the ironic adage goes).
>
> When Grice speaks of a 'restriction', he has in mind the idea that the
> student (or historian) couldn't have just DREAMED (that the date of the
> Battle
> of Waterloo was June 18, 1805). (Cfr. literature on the cognitive side of
> dreams and premonitory dreams -- but a premonitory dream would apply here
> if
> the student or historian dreamed about the Battle of Waterloo BEFORE it
> occurred? Geary disagrees and speaks of postmonitory dreams, which are
> pieces
> of 'defeasible knowledge',, in his words). The student or historian must
> have consulted the right books, which are based on adequate evidence that
> corroborate that the date of the Battle of Waterloo was June 18, 1805.
> And it
> is this fact that is linked to the historian's belief, which, the
> proposition stating the fact being true, turns the historian's mere
> belief into
> proper knowledge.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
