Re: this essay (as I call the NYT piece), McEvoy writes:
"You know - the "implicatures" of "implicatures" are all wrong."
Cheerfully, we can note that Rezza never uses 'implicature', so he (Rezza)
shouldn't care much.
But what does Rezza do, or how does he go, and how wrong can he be?
Rezza entitles his piece, or essay:
"Hopes rise that Staten Island's young eagle is a native New Yorker."
That hopes rise is a metaphor -- I suppose that Popper should say that it can
never be proved that the eagle in question is a native New Yorker, but I
suppose Popper would add that this is good -- or wrong (if it can never be
proved, it can never be refuted, either? It's not that simply).
Rezza goes on (or rather starts, since the previous utterance is the TITLE of
his piece or essay):
"Three years ago, as Lawrence Pugliares searched for bugs and butterflies to
photograph within the Mount Loretto Unique Area, a 200-acre grassland along the
south shore of Staten Island, something not so tiny soared over his head.
Pugliares scrambled as an adult male bald eagle canvassed what would become its
new home. “I had to change lenses and, of course, I missed him,” said Mr.
Pugliares, 52, a stenography instructor who has taken thousands of photos of
eagles. “But we met again and again and again.” Once considered rare, bald
eagles have become increasingly common along New York City’s waterways over the
last few years. Seven to 10 of the birds are thought to live on Staten Island,
including two adult eagles frequently found at several coastal parks in three
neighborhoods."
Popper would possibly make a point about "are thought to live". Who thinks?
Scientists, for Popper (for Popper, objective knowledge is a matter of what
scientists think, rather than, say, stenography instructors).
Rezza goes on:
"Recently, a younger bird has been seen consistently with the two adults,
leading many to believe that Staten Island’s bald eagles have achieved a
milestone this summer. If the juvenile bird hatched in that borough, it would
represent the first bald eagle born in the city in more than 100 years,
according to the New York City Audubon. Birders say the juvenile’s behavior
suggests it was born to that pair of adult eagles."
Grice would say that 'suggests' is all wrong here, ordinary language & all
(Grice was an ordinary-language philosopher): 'implicates' is better. As in
birders (a type of scientists) say that the juvenile's behaviour IMPLICATES
that the juvenile was born to that pair of adult eagles."
"Suggest" should be restricted to what those into hypnosis are into.
Rezza goes on to use Peirceian vocabulary:
"Thick-billed but not yet white-headed, the young bird has been photographed
taking food from the beaks of the older birds, something that is considered a
sign of successful breeding.
"To be a sign" is Peirceian kryptotechnical jargon. Rezza means, "is an index"
-- and Grice, "means-nn" ("It would be very odd for me to say, "Dark clouds
mean rain, but THOSE dark clouds DON'T MEAN rain," or worse, "Dark clouds mean
rain, but it won't rain" -- this point is discussed by H. L. A. Hart in his
"Words and Signs" (1952), crediting the finding to Grice. These were the days
when Hart thought he was a philosopher (as he was!)
Rezza goes on:
"“This behavior certainly indicates that it is a young bird that hatched
recently,” Debra Kriensky, a biologist with the Audubon group, said. “It’s very
exciting.”"
I am excited by the things that excite Debra Kriensky (pronounced /debra/, the
/o/ is dropped -- cfr. "Deborah," as the Irish prefer to spell this Christian
name -- or first name). For Kriensky is also Pierceian and thus Griceian. What
she means is that the juvenile's behaviour IMPLICATES ('certainly') that it
hatched recently.
Only for Grice implicatures are NEVER certain (but 'indeterminate') as he
prefers. But at Audubon we tend to be anti-Popperian like that. On top,
Kriensky is not quite following Grice's apt distinction between:
a) it is certain that p.
b) I am certain that p.
i.e. objective vs. subjective certainty.
Rezza goes on:
"Mike Shanley, a birder on Staten Island and the president of the Friends of
Blue Heron Park, said the feeding suggests “probable nesting,” meaning two
adult birds building a nest to try to have offspring. It is “not confirmed
breeding,” he added, “though it is a very good indicator.’’"
This is Popperian. Shanley said that the feeding IMPLICATES 'probable nesting'.
Since it is PROPOSITIONS that are implicated (as persons are 'implicated,' in a
different usage of 'implicate,' in, say, an entanglement or other), Shanley
suggests or implicates that the feeding IMPLICATES that IT IS PROBABLE (and not
just possible) that the juvenile left a nest on Staten Island.
Shanley aptly contrasts between (A) 'probable nesting' (propositionally: two
adult eagles built a nest with the intention to try and have offspring and (B)
'confirmed breeding'.
"Confirmed breeding" possibly sounds like a swearword to Popper. He spent his
life fighting against confirmationism (and inductivism). "Confirmed breeding,"
propositionally speaking, means that the eagles have been CONFIRMED to have
bred this juvenile on Staten Island -- I'm using the specifics, but surely the
concept can be analysed in more general terms.
Shanley notes that 'probable nesting' is "a very good indicator" for 'confirmed
breeding'.
Again, by 'indicator', Shanley means what Rezza means by 'sign', i.e. index, in
Grice's parlance, qua factive (""Smoke means fire, but there's no fire" is the
most otiose, false, and wrong thing I ever heard." This was before
e-cigarettes).
Rezza goes on:
"Last year, two eagles tried but failed to breed near Mount Loretto."
Geary thinks that "but failed" is otiose -- "Surely if you try, and leave it at
that, the implicature is that you failed --". Geary is thinking of examples,
like, "He tried to climb Mt. Everest on hands and knees". But surely this is an
otiose IMPLICATURE. As Rezza notes, the eagles TRIED to breed near the mount
--; they failed, but this is neither here nor there. In British English, 'try
and' is considered rude, whereas, 'try to' is considered subordinate (and
Chomskyan in nature) and thus to be preferred.
Rezza goes on:
"None of the bald eagles are banded or tagged, which makes tracking them a
challenge."
In Popperian scientific methodological terms.
Rezza goes on:
"But the male spotted this year is believed to be the same male from last year
and the same one Mr. Pugliares first encountered in 2013."
-- believed by scientists, surely, for Popper. Rezza brings the devil's
advocate:
"Officials at the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation, which
administers the Mount Loretto area, expressed some scepticism that an eagle
could have been born on Staten Island, noting that the birds could have
wandered across Raritan Bay from nesting sites in New Jersey."
Popper was, like those officials, a bit of a sceptic ("but not the whole hog,"
he would say). Trust officials to spoil a good NYT story. But surely it adds
drama to Rezza's feature. Rezza cares to provide the hypothesis that, for these
officials, who are not named, DISCONFIRMS the idea that we are dealing with a
New York native here: "the bird could have flown from across Raritan Bay."
This necessitates formalism in terms of probability theory.
Rezza goes on to be Popperian:
"Without a confirmed nest, there is no way to be certain where the eagle was
born."
Note Rezza's use of two words abused by Popper: 'confirmed' (he wrote --
Popper, not Rezza -- a lot about and against confirmationism alla Reichenbach),
and 'certain' (Popper was a bit of a sceptic -- "but not the whole hog.")
Rezza goes on:
"But birders say there are plenty of remote places on Staten Island where a
nest could be hidden. “There are a lot of thick woods,” Mr. Shanley said. “If
they nested in the top of a tall tree in the middle of those, nobody would have
found them.” "
This is Berkeley's paradox with a vengeance, that Popper criticizes. He
criticizes the paradox, not the vengeance. If a tree falls in the middle of a
forest, and there's nobody to hear it fall, can we say that it made a sound as
it fell?" Berkeley, "Journal,"
Popper would say that it is easy to prove a negative -- "no nest has been
found." But surely, it is the FINDING of the nest that would confirm that the
eagle is a native New Yorker. Not for Popper. For Popper, finding a nest is not
enough proof -- Rather Popper focuses on falsifiability. The finding of a nest
would falsify the theory that there are no eagle nests in Staten Island -- he
can be trivial at times, Popper can.
Rezza goes on:
"It is not uncommon for eagles to fail to breed — meaning a nest was built and
eggs were laid but did not hatch — several times, said Ed Johnson, the former
director of science at the Staten Island Museum. “They need a few tries to get
it right,” he said."
This seems okay for Popper. He was into trial and error, so "a few tries," say
three, seems just alright. So Ed Johnson IS Popperian.
Rezza goes on
"There is mounting circumstantial evidence that they did so this year: The
adult birds and the juvenile, which is at most a few months old, have been
spotted perching on the same branch, communicating and feeding together,
implying that the young bird hatched in the area."
Rezza's use of "implying" meaning implicating PROVES he is a Griceian (at
heart).
Rezza goes on:
"What is undeniable"
i.e. irrefutable
"is New York’s place among urban areas to which eagles, once threatened with
extinction, have returned."
But Popper never visited New York -- but he bred penguins.
Rezza goes on:
"Widespread pesticide use after World War II had decimated their numbers. “In
1960, there was only one breeding pair in all of New York State,” Ms. Kriensky
said. But after decades of federal protection, the birds were removed from the
endangered species list in 2007. Bald eagles have also become regulars in
Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens and along the Hudson River in the Bronx
and Manhattan. “The way I grew up,” Mr. Pugliares said, “we knew about the
national bird but we never saw it. Now they’re here. I mean, they’re right
here.” Since 2009, over 900 eagle sightings on Staten Island have been reported
on eBird.com, a website that tracks bird sightings and population trends. Most
have been of the adult male that Mr. Pugliares has seen so often that he gave
it a nickname: Vito, after the patriarch in “The Godfather.” The eagle often
flies over a church where parts of the movie were filmed, and perches
conspicuously on telephone poles throughout his sliver of territory. Since his
arrival, Vito has been the most popular attraction on a Facebook group page
devoted to Staten Island wildlife — a “rock-star bird,” as Mr. Pugliares says.
The juvenile bird was easily spotted recently at one of Mount Loretto’s ponds.
Mr. Pugliares took photos as it spread its wings, exposing its brown belly, to
bask in the sun for several minutes. It certainly appeared at home. “I’ve never
seen any eagle act this way,” Mr. Pugliares said. But the nest where the eagle
was born still eludes him, as it does everyone else."
A negative fact, in Popperian parlance.
Rezza concludes his fascinating Griceian piece:
"“It’s hard to say exactly what happened with the nest,” Ms. Kriensky said.
“The fact that they are here in general is pretty amazing and a sign that these
birds are thriving.”"
where, by 'a sign that--' Kriensky reminds us again how to be a good Griceian
in six (if 'silly' for Popper) easy lessons.
Cheers,
Speranza
