tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7368308025704762159..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Quine (from my book "The Great Philosophers")Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86306009836506663742012-01-06T04:07:36.238+00:002012-01-06T04:07:36.238+00:00I think that some of the significance of Quine'...I think that some of the significance of Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism is that it anticipated the work of Kripke and Hilary Putnam on natural kinds, wherein empirical discoveries of the properties of natural kinds such as gold can be incorporated into our knowledge of these kinds without it constituing a change in definition.<br /><br />One supposed consequence of Identity and Necessity and Naming and Necessity is that if mental state A turns out to be brain state B, then this is necessariy true, and NOT because it is an analytic truth.<br /><br />However, to dispense with the distinction itself and not merely to suggest that it is less applicable than believed is an extreme position.Daniel Polowetzky https://www.blogger.com/profile/04299950687312400826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52638565852879222302012-01-02T06:26:44.238+00:002012-01-02T06:26:44.238+00:00In arguing against the analytic/synthetic distinct...In arguing against the analytic/synthetic distinction, is Quine arguing against the possibility of any analytic truths, for example, those simply stipulated when engaging in set theory or mathematics?<br /><br />It would seem that nothing stops one from stipulating that the set X consists of elements a,b,and c. Some statements as to the elements of set X being elements of set X wil be true by definition or analytically.<br /><br />Is not this possibility of stipulation an argument for an analytic/synthetic distintion, even if trivial?Daniel Polowetzky https://www.blogger.com/profile/04299950687312400826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53910893258923656072008-08-13T01:48:00.000+00:002008-08-13T01:48:00.000+00:00something something Quine, something something wor...<I>something something Quine, something something worldview, something something, how does that logic apply to mine, something something, how does Quine account for logic,.... something</I><BR/><BR/>Is this perhaps the most cogent line of reasoning we've seen from Sye?Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91787348252363752008-08-12T22:52:00.000+00:002008-08-12T22:52:00.000+00:00something something Quine, something something wor...something something Quine, something something worldview, something something, how does that logic apply to mine, something something, how does Quine account for logic,.... something<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30900336416384707522008-08-11T09:09:00.000+00:002008-08-11T09:09:00.000+00:00"True, we might not be able easily to envisage cir..."True, we might not be able easily to envisage circumstances under which we would consider it false. But just because we can’t easily envisage such circumstances doesn’t mean they don’t exist."<BR/><BR/>Is this not just a re-statement of the problem of induction, further highlighting the difficulties in applying logical/mathematical reasoning to the physical world?<BR/><BR/>if Quine asks us to accept "But just because we can’t easily envisage such circumstances doesn’t mean they don’t exist." does he not also have to accept the same for the notion of analytic truth?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Quine may have given us a bit of a jolt from complacency but I feel that we should not discard a useful practical distinction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57235046044800272212008-08-11T08:58:00.000+00:002008-08-11T08:58:00.000+00:00Hi Timmo - I am no Quine expert unfortunately. Her...Hi Timmo - I am no Quine expert unfortunately. Here in UK this view is much less popular, certainly. Criticisms include:<BR/><BR/>(i) the fact that terms are defined in a circle is not a problem - that happens in science too (Grice/Strawson)<BR/><BR/>(ii) the term necessity can be explained independently without appeal to these other notions (Hooker).<BR/><BR/>(iii) Quine is operating with a behaviouristic, reductionistic model - which is too crude.<BR/><BR/>You might check e.g. the Stanford Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy for more....Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75854252633457735412008-08-10T23:41:00.000+00:002008-08-10T23:41:00.000+00:00Stephen,I've got a question for you about Quine's ...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>I've got a question for you about Quine's critique of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Why has the distinction fallen out of favor?<BR/><BR/>Quine's critique relies quite explicitly on behaviorism in psychology. If we abandon that behaviorism, as we must if we are to be consistent with contemporary science, then much of the critique loses its sting.<BR/><BR/>Also, the consequences of following Quine here are going to be rough: <I>there is no such thing as meaning</I>. Once you erase or blur the distinction, a whole range of notions, like necessity, synonymy, and meaning bite the dust. But, most contemporary philosophers don't dispose of these notions.<BR/><BR/>Quine starts from a position we shouldn't hold and ends in a place many don't follow him to. So, why should the distinction fall out of favor?Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49636438449962931842008-08-10T20:31:00.000+00:002008-08-10T20:31:00.000+00:00Well, I've lived for almost half a century with a ...Well, I've lived for almost half a century with a top UK statistician, and he's the most niggling verbal pedant you can imagine. There are at least two dozen dictionaries in this house, and at least a couple of them are being consulted every day.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65734571066567452852008-08-10T18:29:00.000+00:002008-08-10T18:29:00.000+00:00anonymouse, TOO FUNNY! I'm not certain I can muste...anonymouse, TOO FUNNY! I'm not certain I can muster a response here. <BR/><BR/>But, yes... I think if you pull a random 30 piece sample of the way I spell certain words, you'll find variation with no direct correlation to the context. You'll further find (with a 99% confidence interval) that I just don't know what the heck I'm doing and it has nothing to do with my keyboard.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49047456445253457642008-08-10T18:15:00.000+00:002008-08-10T18:15:00.000+00:00andrew : Statistics - that's even worse! Most engi...andrew : <BR/><BR/>Statistics - that's even worse! Most engineers systematically mis-spell either by throwing out non-functional letters or adding extra ones to meet the safety margins but you don't usually get random variation! <BR/><BR/>Don't tell me.. Your keyboard has error bars as well as a space bar?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3268083180238738572008-08-10T18:02:00.000+00:002008-08-10T18:02:00.000+00:00Ha ha ha Anticant, you got me. Nice one.How about ...Ha ha ha Anticant, you got me. Nice one.<BR/><BR/>How about I rephrase that to the arangement of letters in the english language. I pay it no mind.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately in my area of expertise (statistics), it's not critical that I can spell it.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32619292609414981932008-08-10T17:45:00.000+00:002008-08-10T17:45:00.000+00:00"Words never made a whole lot of sense to me...."O..."Words never made a whole lot of sense to me...."<BR/><BR/>Ouch! Why are you posting on a philosophy blog, then? :)anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48466209803919373042008-08-10T17:26:00.000+00:002008-08-10T17:26:00.000+00:00On a side note,it's been brought to my attention t...On a side note,<BR/>it's been brought to my attention that my spelling is horrible. Yes, this is true. <BR/><BR/>I'm an engineer you guys, not an english major. Words never made a whole lot of sense to me....Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15513611260213737932008-08-10T17:17:00.000+00:002008-08-10T17:17:00.000+00:00I know this thread will become endless if I ask ot...I know this thread will become endless if I ask others to define "truth" - but it is one of those words that gets bandied around pretty loosely! As I've remarked on previous threads, the so-called "laws of logic" aren't laws in the sense of eternal unbreakable edicts [whatever Sye may think]; they are simply semantic working rules designed to produce consistency in thought and discussion, and - as anonymous says - will no doubt be modified when they are found not to do this adequately in the light of developing knowledge.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15814595487505378062008-08-10T16:50:00.000+00:002008-08-10T16:50:00.000+00:00"How do we know that all bachelors live in the vic..."How do we know that all bachelors live in the vicinity of the Earth? There may be bachelors on other planets, or in other universes."<BR/><BR/>I suppose in our typically racist way we could simply restrict the definition of "men" to human males, having Earth passports, and "vicinity" to mean "as far as Earthmen have ever traveled".<BR/><BR/>Admittedly the possibility of other Universes does rather throw a spanner in the works but I suppose we could stretch the definition of "vicinity". <BR/><BR/>Mind you, we rapidly approach the other kind of truth claim.<BR/><BR/>Stephen said: "interestingly, some have suggested that developments in quantum mechanics require that we revise the laws of logic"<BR/><BR/>i think this is entirely the wrong way of looking at it. Mathematicians have been used to playing around with all sort of non-intuitive algebras and logic systems for ages. What we call "the laws of logic" usually refers to the sort of stuff applicable to the world of everyday experience. When some of the whackier stuff becomes everyday currency we will refer to the expanded set as "the laws of logic" and probably give some other name to the logic we currently use. what ever we all it though it will still be the same thing and still be valid in its context. Future logicians will be able to do the same manipulations as we now do although they may be explicitly aware that some facets of the physical world do not actually behave in this way. In the same way Newtons Laws of Motion are still as they are when he wrote them down. They are not changed by the discovery that they do not apply to the real world as well as he thought they did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43606618642795995362008-08-10T16:13:00.000+00:002008-08-10T16:13:00.000+00:00I haven't read Quine, but he seems to be leading i...I haven't read Quine, but he seems to be leading into pragmatism here. In that, there are no analytic truths, there is only what works as truth. (But, I see that as I'm a bit of a pragmatist myself and I'm not familiar with Quine.)<BR/><BR/>If for example, Sye's argument works, so what, what use does it have? <BR/><BR/>Sye,<BR/>aside from believing in God to avoid hell (which is laughable) what other practical purpose does it have? What does religion do for humanity that humanity cannot do for themselves?<BR/><BR/>it reminds me of a joke I posted <BR/><A HREF="http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/06/christian-preparedness.html" REL="nofollow">HERE:</A>Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15829152771964867672008-08-10T14:50:00.000+00:002008-08-10T14:50:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19710060598289844782008-08-10T14:00:00.000+00:002008-08-10T14:00:00.000+00:00How do we know that all bachelors live in the vici...How do we know that all bachelors live in the vicinity of the Earth? There may be bachelors on other planets, or in other universes. <BR/><BR/>We don’t know “a priori” that all bachelors are unmarried. We only know it because “bachelor” is the term conventionally used for unmarried men.<BR/><BR/>Neither do we know “a priori” that 2 + 2 = 4. We only know this because “2” and”4” are the conventional symbols used to designate certain quantities.<BR/><BR/>Pace Anselm, there is no “a priori” evidence that God exists. <BR/><BR/>“So when Quine presented a powerful-looking argument that the analytic/synthetic distinction was, in effect, empty, and that no distinction could be made between those true statements that are true purely in virtue of meaning and those that are not, the effect on the philosophical community was electrifying.” They must have been rather dim not to have realised this before Quine pointed it out!<BR/><BR/>The Flat Earth Society is alive and well:<BR/><BR/>http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htmanticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16148675480663509942008-08-10T13:37:00.000+00:002008-08-10T13:37:00.000+00:00I think the notion of analyticity still has some v...I think the notion of analyticity still has some value, although nowhere near the deep connection with truth that earlier philosophers attributed to it.<BR/><BR/>Quine's elaborate construction that analytic statements are just those statements about the world are those we are most reluctant to change seems like a red herring. There is a much simpler, more direct way of drawing a distinction that keeps some passing resemblance to our intuitive notions about analytic and synthetic statements.<BR/><BR/>The concept of the "web of belief" refers to something entirely real, physical and concrete: human brains and the arrangement of neurons in those brains. Abstracted many layers, to be sure, but an abstraction of something prosaically real.<BR/><BR/>So the analytical/synthetic distinction retains some utility: synthetic statements are statements about the world <I>outside</I> our minds; analytical statements are statements about our minds themselves, specifically about the arrangement of our language-interpreting neurons.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com