[lit-ideas] Re: Some like Witters, but Moore's MY man
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
The term "principle of total evidence" is then perhaps more Popperian than due
to Popper his self?
This requires some further research>
No, no, no. JLS had referred to the "principle of total evidence" _as Popper
calls it_.
JLS was asked where Popper refers to such a thing.
We are now given a mere evasive reply i.e. (a) perhaps the term is "more
Popperian than due to Popper" (implicature: perhaps Popper never referred to
it) (b) this "requires further research" (implicature: JLS is pathologically
indisposed to admit error and rather than admit Popper never called anything
the "principle of total evidence" it is better to pretend that having claimed
Popper did it is okay to justify this claim by saying it "requires further
research" [by this token I am justified in claiming "The UK Referendum decided
against Brexit" by saying this "requires further research"].
Why do I think Popper never refers to a "principle of total evidence" (even
though I admit I can't prove this by going through the "total evidence")?
Because there is no such thing as "total evidence", in Popper's view, for much
the same reasons as there is no such thing as verification.
On a side-issue: Moore was, of course, a relative imbecile in philosophic terms
- as Popper shrewdly judged - though to be valued as a man of common sense
(say, if you wanted your car fixed: Moore would suggest a garage, whereas other
philosophers might go off on one).
My advice:- JLS should stop littering his posts with false claims, like claims
as to what Popper said. JLS should also stop citing the view "Some like
Witters, but Moore's my man" as if it solves anything or proves anything except
how irritatingly witless something can become through idle repetition. In
general, as Beckett sometimes said, "Stop f....g around".
I sign this on behalf of all people of sense and sanity.
DnlLdn
From: "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2016, 1:47
Subject: [lit-ideas] Some like Witters, but Moore's MY man
Moore is credited with having invented the idea of 'entailment'. He rather
transferred a legal use of 'entail' to a new logical context. He was trying to
be clever in a Cantabrigian sort of way. Witters was no different in that
respect (Cantabrigian).
Popper's experiences in Cambridge were also Cantabrigian, indeed. And involved
a fork that did not belong to him -- or to Witters's for that matter.
It all started with a joke. McEvoy was referring to Witters's "Welsh" truth
tables. I thought I would modify that into 'a table of falsehood'. For surely
if we have tables, we have ONE table. And if we have a truth table, we have a
falsehood table. And in most languages like Latin and Greek, you need to refer
to 'table' first and 'truth' or 'falsehood' afterwards. You cannot say, 'pink
house', but 'casa rosa'.
Hence my table of falsehood. Since McEvoy was referring to the new Welsh one by
Witters, I was wondering if it is TRUE that Witters did invent these tables or
the table of falsehood. It occurred to me that Popper would need total evidence
-- 'total evidence' is often used in probability theory (which Popper knew),
and sometimes abbreviated as ATC -- all things considered (vide Suppe and
Davidson).
It occurred to me that Popper would say that since we don't have ALL THE
EVIDENCE we need to say that Witters invented the table of falsehood, Popper
may still want to say that we can say that, say, we have all the evidence we
need ('all things considered') that Grice did not invent them.
It then occurred to me that Grice COULD have invented the table of falsehood
(in "Vacuous Names," he uses 1 for true and 0 for false). Just because Witters
is credited with having invented the table of falsehood does not mean that if
the thing occurred to someone else, this someone else (say, Grice) could NOT be
credited as the inventor.
Popper possibly did not care about these trivialities. He would say that
Wittgenstein's table of falsehood, or Wittgenstein's new Welsh truth table (to
use McEvoy's invention), exists -- in w1. Things invented do not come in w3
with a tag that reads, "invented by Witters". Say "America". It doesn't come,
in w3, as "discovered by Columbus".
McEvoy:
"I've read some Popper and I don't recall him ever using the term "Principle of
total evidence"."
I like the metonymy: by Popper we mean, 'essays' (or poetry, only Popper never
wrote a poem that was compiled) by Popper (as when we say, "I like Beethoven,"
meaning what he composed -- unless you are his girlfriend and are trying to
justify your going to the dance with him to your friend). The term "principle
of total evidence" is then perhaps more Popperian than due to Popper his self?
This requires some further research
Cheers,
Speranza
Other related posts: