[lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Three arguments against quantitative social "science" as science
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:14:03 -0230
I missed your pointing out decades ago why you believe the NF is not a fallacy.
But perhaps we could stay with Searle.
Since we are a dialogical community of inquiry, after all, and not all of us may
have read Searle on the NF, why don't you hum a few bars of the tune you believe
Searle was crooning so we may all chirp in on whether Searle got it right "50
yrs ago (!)" and/or on whether you got Searle right of course. Always good to
be singing from the same page of the hymn book.
Eschewing mightily ...
(And no-one say "Gesundheit.")
Walter O
Dacha Svetlaya Polyana
Quoting Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> That is what you believe. I don't, for reasons pointed out decades ago. You
> may enjoy refuting the views published 50 yrs ago (!) e.g by J. R. Searle. In
> Phil Rev 1n 1964. The piece is available even on the www via courtesy of duke
> press. You may equally enjoy A. Prior's work on the subject. I have no idea
> of what political commentary you have. Feel free to eschew whatever it is
> that ought to be eschewed
> best
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Walter C. Okshevsky
> Sent: 02 September 2014 21:36
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Eric
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Three arguments against quantitative social
> "science" as science
>
> With reference to your question (and eschewing all political commentary), I
> would say, yes, the naturalistic fallacy (Hume's version) is indeed a logical
> fallacy. An argument with all (only) empirical premises cannot validly
> conclude with a moral or any value judgement. That's what I believe and I
> think you ought to agree.
>
> On his dacha,
>
> Walter O
>
>
> Quoting Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > >> Compare and contrast: many believe that much of the turmoil in the
> > >> near
> > east is caused (con-caused) by the very existence of the state of Israel.
> > Come onto stage the "humean" theorist who tells me that there is no
> "proof"
> > of that.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is impossible to prove "beliefs" (values) by facts, is it not?
> >
> > One cannot demonstrate or prove values by facts--z.b., to show those
> > who question the worth of Israel's existence are fools--but one CAN
> > report the statistical results of opinion polls, and use those results
> > to "update a web of beliefs" (Quine).
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
