[lit-ideas] Re: Try a Logic Problem
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:16:47 -0700
Phil wrote:
Robert Paul wrote:
"That there 'is not and cannot be an answer' to how a correspondence is
possible between statements (sentences, propositions, judgments) and an
alleged 'non-linguistic entity,' viz., in the ordinary language of
detectives, lawyers, various parties to various disputes and
negotiations, a fact, seems to fly in the face of plain facts, to use
an expression on which philosophers do not hold the copyright. 'You say
that you were in Pittsburgh when Smith was murdered, but this does not
correspond to the facts,' says Inspector Quine."
Then Phil said:
This is not quite right. When X says "I was in Pittsburgh when Smith
was murdered" and Inspector Quine says "No, that is not true", the
conflict is not between the sentence provided by X and a fact but what
the sentence proposes to be true and another proposition.
This may very well be, but you're now telling a story in which Inspector
Quine uses a different form of words than he did (in fact) use. Changing
the example, as everyone knows, although sometimes illuminating, is also
sometimes misleading, as here, when the new example isn't analogous with
the one under consideration.
I find the shift between sentence and proposition a bit confusing (but
this may not matter). We can infer from (the real) Inspector Quine's
remark that the person it's addressed to has said that he was in
Pittsburgh. Quine does not go on to say, 'But my sentence (assertion?)
says otherwise'—he says that this claim does not correspond to the facts
(as Quine understands them). 'No you weren't,' would be a further
statement which with some minor adjustments might be incompatible with
the suspect's original form of words, but strictly speaking, 'I was in
Pittsburgh,' and 'You were not in Pittsburgh,' are not logically
contradictory. I'll leave it to Phil to explain how 'No, that is not
true,' doesn't involve some reference to how things are (or perhaps to
how they are not, that is, to a non-existent state of affairs).
Moreover, Quine's response, 'No, that is not true,' needs some support,
perhaps the kind of support I gave him in the initial story.
Phil goes on:
There is
nothing wrong with the sentence and it would be nonsensical for
Inspector Quine to object to the sentence. Rather, Inspector Quine
objects to what is claimed to be true, some proposed state of affairs.
In addition, what Inspector Quine relies on to rebut X's alibi is
evidence that depends on testimony and witnesses. In other words, and
it couldn't be otherwise, X is caught out in a false claim by other true
claims.
This is just confusing enough that my reply may be off the mark. You're
referring, I take it, to the sentence uttered by the suspect, the
sentence by means of which he claimed to have been in Pittsburgh at the
relevant time. If Quine is questioning anything, it isn't the sentence
('too short,' 'ungrammatical'), but what's being claimed by its utterer.
The arrangement of the world does not support the claim that the suspect
was in Pittsburgh. The truth of other sentences would not support it
either but then one wonders what makes them true, so this seems to be a
circuitous path to a straightforward solution: you say the world's like
that; but it isn't.
At no point do we encounter this mythological being, the\'non-linguistic entity', that dances through the > dreams of so many philosophers.
Again, I'm not sure what's being denied here. I say: 'There are four
dots in a row.'
The world says: • • •
Phil says: 'What you said isn't true.'
Phil is right, but his grounds for saying it would (I think) be that
there are three, not four dots, which is supported by
• • •
I'll call this a state of affairs, an arrangement of things in the world
outside the sentence, a non-linguistic entity, perhaps.
Robert Paul
Reed College
Robert Paul wrote:
"It's strange that people could get along at all before the advent of
metaphysical semantics."
Nah. Nothing strange about the fact that only the sick need medicine.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
