[Wittrs] The Tactical Paraphrase: From Fallacy to Factuality
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 09:09:43 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
1. Stuart's Strategic Defensive Claim
>>your claim that Searle is a Cartesian dualist rests on the claim that
>>Dennett agrees with you that Searle is a Cartesian dualist.
>I never said I came to my views via Dennett or that my views depended
>on what anyone but Searle, himself, said since they were based on
>reading and thinking about Searle's CRA. I have said, however, that
>later, on reading Dennett, I found that he was on record as having said
>many of the things I've come to think about consciousness and deserved
>credit since he preceded me on this and said it better.
I never said that you got your views from reading Dennett.
I said that, in defending your views, you've offered nothing more than
the claim that Dennett agrees with you.
* * *
2. Misrepresentation of Thread History
it seems that you are misrepresenting the history of this dispute in
order to resume whining about the evolution of this thread.
>Most recently you have argued that to be a "Cartesian dualist" one
>needs to be a full blown subscriber to Descartes' historical philosophy
>and now you're actually claiming that I make my case on the grounds
>that Dennett called Searle a "Cartesian dualist".
Stuart, what have you been smoking?
I claim that Dennett does *not* accuse Searle of being a 'Cartesian
dualist'; and, therefore, your case is completely bogus.
I never claimed that a 'Cartesian dualist' has to adopt every belief
Descartes ever held; but, I do claim that Dennett understands that
'Cartesian dualism' is interactive substance dualism; and, consequently,
you contradict yourself by claiming that Dennett agrees with you while
also admitting that you classify Searle as a Cartesian dualist even
though his views neither presuppose nor entail a second kind of stuff.
* * *
3. Revising Dennett's Text
it also appears that you've taken to revising Dennett's views so that
they appear consistent with your own.
for those who came in late, in Dennett's critique of the CRA, he says
that Cartesian dualists believe that 'more of the same' would not
produce understanding because an immortal soul is required to produce
understanding. Stuart wants to argue
C -> X [Cartesianism entails believing X (in this case that more of the
same will not produce understanding)]
X [Searle believes the same thing (in this case that more of the
same will not produce understanding)]
(therefore) C [Searle is a Cartesian dualist]
this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
instead of revising his own opinions, Stuart decided to revise Dennett's
text.
Stuart started to claim that Dennett had said that "only Cartesian
dualists believe that 'more of the same' would not produce
understanding". the strategic purpose of this claim is that it turns
fallacy into factuality, thus:
X -> C [if only a Cartesian dualist believes X, then believing X is an
infallable indicator of C; so, logically, it means the reverse of what
Dennett's actual statement claims]
X [Searle believes the same thing (in this case that more of the
same will not produce understanding)]
(therefore) C [Searle is a Cartesian dualist]
now, with the revised first premise, the syllogism is a valid modus
ponens.
when challenged to point out precisely where Dennett has said "only a
Cartesian dualist ...", Stuart admitted that there was no such place.
>>>While I expect he would agree with the "only" characterization, he
>>>doesn't explicitly say that in that text and I don't put words in his
>>>mouth.
>>then we agree that Dennett does not actually say 'only a Cartesian
>>dualist believes X' (where, as before, X is something relevant such as
>>the belief that more of the same wouldn't produce understanding).
>Where have you been in these discussions. I've never said he says
>"only" but only that he likely would, i.e., I believe he implies it.
Stuart then started claiming that Dennett had said "it takes a Cartesian
dualist to believe X"; but, of course, when challenged ...
>>does he actually write 'it takes a Cartesian dualist to believe X'?
>Go back and read the text. I didn't aim for a direct quote but only a
>rough paraphrase.
Stuart, only a very poor paraphrase would assert that the logical
relation between two terms is the exact reverse of the relation asserted
by the unmodified text.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
