[lit-ideas] Re: Try a Logic Problem
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:38:46 -0500
That was my point exactly, Donal. Thanks for clarifying it.
Mike Geary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donal McEvoy" <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:33 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Try a Logic Problem
I can't pretend to have closely followed this thread but nevertheless let
me
butt in, be ignored maybe, review the thread later to see if this is
justified, conclude it probably is, then add 'Walter you ignored my
beautiful
(if simple) comments on the ontic rather than epistemic understanding of
the
'truth/correspondence' relation, alluding to Tarski's theory of
'truth-as-correspendence' in its Popperian interpretation (on which Tarski
stayed _neutral_ [naturellement]), but which takes us to the heart of many
things - for example, why Wittgenstein's 'picture theory' fails, not
actually
because it blatantly confuses ontic and epistemic issues (though it might
be
suggested it does this when put in overall context) but because it offers
fair too simplistic a model of the possible ontic relationship between
statements and the reality to which they might correspond i.e. it suggests
that it must come down to mere 'picturing' as in a one-to-one
correspondence
of 'pictured objects' and their real-life counterparts.
I'm getting tired. Oh yeah.
My point was that the three hats thing is not a purely logical problem at
all
- and quite misleading in this regard, since it is important to separate
out
the strictly logical from the other aspects if the problem. [if we assume
that the one, who could speak out if x, cannot actually speak, then the
fact
he does not speak out - which is not one of strict logic but empirical
fact -
would negate inferring from the fact he does not speak (because, in fact,
he
cannot)to the conclusion that he does not speak out because his knowledge-
situation is too weak to justify a conclusion].
Equally, and someone may have said this, can't he use the 'waiting-game'
logic (i.e. if they don't speak out = they don't know) to reason in
reverse?
And so, after a set time, pre-empt everyone. Saying:they will be about to
infer from my not speaking that I am uncertain that x which means they
take
it as non-x and then reason, but - assuming they are not just very slow -
I
can infer from their relative slowness that they are thinking this way,
which
corroborates the 'non-x' theory.
After all, as Popper said, all knowledge is guesswork of some kind.
Donal
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address
from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
