[lit-ideas] Re: Causal Theories alla Grice
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:44:00 -0400
In a message dated 3/10/2015 2:02:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Clearly the first premise is false. We may doubt then that Jones had sound
justification to believe the conclusion, even if we have some sympathy for
his error. That the conclusion can happen to be true even though one of
the premises is false should hardly surprize us; in fact the conclusion could
be true even if BOTH of the premises were false. So, perhaps we just need
to make our notion of justification a little more precise. How about
something like: "A belief is justified if and only if the reasoning that leads
to
adopting it is sound" ? Where by 'sound' we mean that it is logically valid
and based on true premises. This seems to me to be both simpler and safer
than all the talk about causal chains, proximate and ultimate causes,
formal vs. material conditions, and what not.
Well, one of the conversational maxims, according to Grice is
"Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence".
So I guess he knew what he was saying. "Adequate evidence" is actually
legalese (as McEvoy would have it) and I would not be surprised if Grice got it
from Hart!
But I think Grice wants to avoid the 'difficulties' of a 'regressive
nature', which epistemic logicians delight in.
KAp --> KAKAp --> ... and so ad infinitum.
The 'condition' Grice has is pretty simple:
"Some condition placing restriction on how A came to believe that p."
I suppose if you don't believe in witchcraft, or oracular superstitions,
the examination candidate cannot just provide as an answer silly things.
Examiner: So, when was the Battle of Waterloo fought?
Examination Candidate: 1815.
(Strawson read PPE at Oxford, and was Grice's student -- one course is in
Modern History so we may have the candidate being Strawson):
Examiner: So, when was the Battle of Waterloo fought?
Strawson: 1815.
Examiner: I mean complete date, not just year.
Strawson: June 18, 18515
Examiner: How do you know?
Coming from an Oxford Examiner, "How do you know sounds odd". Recall Grice:
Grice poses the problem in terms of 'date':
The examination candidate, say, Strawson, may know that the battle of
Waterloo was
fought on June 18, 1815 without conclusive evidence.
The examination candidate, say Strawson, may even answer after some (if not
too remarkable) hesitation (showing in the end that he knows the answer).
Examiner: And what was the date of the Battle of Waterloo.
Strawson: Er ... The date was ... er ... June 18 -- er -- 1815?
Examiner: Is that a question?
Strawson: No, sir; sorry, sir. The date was, er, June 18, 1815.
Examiner: Good.
Grice (to Examiner): How did Strawson do?
Examiner: Well. I asked him the date of the battle of Waterloo, and he knew
that the date was June 18, 1815.
Since Grice is a philosopher, he might at a later time, converse this with
his wife.
Grice: Strawson knew that the date of the Battle of Waterloo was June 18,
1815.
Suppose Mrs. Grice was an intuitionist, or was feeling intuitionist.
Mrs. Grice: I wonder how he got to know that?
Grice: What d'you mean?
Mrs. Grice: I mean -- that was a long time ago.
Grice: I'm sure Strawson read the right books.
-----
All we need is that the 'evidence' that Strawson had was 'adequate' if not
'complete'.
What would it mean to have 'complete evidence' that the date of the Battle
of Waterloo was June 18, 1815.
Surely, the registers in the "Waterloo Daily", translated from the French,
"Battle fought today". And on the next day: "Big defeat at Waterloo"
(translated).
Historians deal with this type of complete or semi-complete evidence, and
they are alleged to KNOW. History is a branch of 'knowledge'; history is a
science.
There are auxiliary sciences to history, such as archeology: the remains on
the battle field, for example. The reports by the military envolved,
cross-references, perhaps a first-hand account, by someone who took part in it
-- in a 'war journal'.
Note all the evidence may be mentioned in the book Strawson used.
He still _KNEW_ -- as opposed he 'just guessed'?
And all the evidence, to be adequate, must be traced back to that memorable
date, and verified (Intuitionists say it can't -- but that's THEIR problem
with 'knowledge' -- I don't think Strawson's!).
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:
