This is the Message Centre for Bx4
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Psiomniac Posted Dec 5, 2009
There is still a problem here I think:
"This is not what Joyce is arguing since using Firth's 'ideal observer' theory he says specifically that...."
This is why I said Joyce doesn't endorse Firth's 'ideal observer' theory. What I mean is that Joyce mentions 'subjectivist relativism' and 'objectivist relativism' but then goes on to make the case that the subjectivist /needent/ be a relativist. So I was talking about the first part, where Joyce was talking about 'subjectivist relativism' and your response above seems to relate to the second part, where Joyce sketches a way that subjectivists can avoid relativism.
"A second problem with your argument is..."
I don't see that as a problem, in fact it sounds just like my conception of moral relativism.
"Well not really because Joyce's argument is that the actual truth value of the proposition is independent of John or Jenny's propositional attitudes and dependent only of the judgment of the 'ideal observer'."
Again, that's in the second part, and you agree that this isn't Joyce's argument as such, he just presents an account of a non-relativist subjectivist stance. But in any case, regardless of whether somebody, John or Jenny perhaps, adheres to 'ideal observer theory' or not, I don't think that means that what I said is incorrect. That's because, even supposing ideal observer theory were true, it might still be the case that John and Jenny each thinks the other is wrong.
Metal Fatigue
Psiomniac Posted Dec 5, 2009
Hi Jank,
I hope your lot are feeling better.
My steely resolve broke, I hope you don't mind.
ttfn
Conjectures and Refutations
Bx4 Posted Dec 7, 2009
hi psi
'I don't have to, I /choose/ to.'
I seems the compatibilist and the philatelist have much in common......
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Bx4 Posted Dec 7, 2009
hi psi
'I think we're in agreement about logic. My caveat is really just equivalent to your point that full contextualisation is required for proposition status.'
And there I was thinking from 'Objective' disagreed with my contextualisation argument.
'Hence '2 + 2 = 4' is not a proposition because full contextualisation hasn't been given. Or in terms of my caveat, the system must be specified, it could be true in one system and not another.'
Presumably your argument is that the context is the number base. However if we take
(a) (1+1)+(1+1) = 4 (base 10)
(b) (1+1)+(1+1) = 20 (base 2)
(c) (1+1)+(1+1) = 11 (base 3)
then we have:
(c) 4(base 10) = 20(base 2) = 11(base 3)
So if we treat the addition as either a combination of sets or an extension of the number line from zero then the result is always the same for any addition of the form a+b=c irrespective of the base.
Therefore, if John and Jenny were working in two different base but know this then they will never disagree as to the truth of the other's proposition.
This seems quite different to the situation in which both judge each other in error as to the truth or falsity of the proposition 'Stealing is wrong in context A'.
'Agreed.'
He made this point explicit elsewhere:
//I attempt to clarify some relevant metaethical options (without advocating any of them***) in my entry for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "moral anti-realism.//
'Yet it seems to me that you /did/ eliminate the indexical from each and every proposition in your examples'
Indeed I did. My apologies, I left something out while moving on to another point.
After 'What /I/ mean ........'
I meant to quote this from the main article:
//Not only is Firth's analysis non-relativistic (since it contains no ineliminable indexical element).......//
Which leads one to conclude that the sine qua non of moral relativism is that true propositions (made so by being the correlate of an observer dependent fact) should be considered relative only if they contain irreducible indexicals.
In what followed I was merely showing a case where eliminating indexicals did not produce non-contradictory propositions.
Metal Fatigue?.........Use adamantium!
Bx4 Posted Dec 7, 2009
hi both....
I'm in sofa/popcorn/beer mode on this one.
Psi I've finally got around to connecting my sound card to my hi-fi amp so I'll finally manage to listen to your DID.
bsy
Conjectures and Refutations
Psiomniac Posted Dec 8, 2009
Hi bx4,
"I seems the compatibilist and the philatelist have much in common......"
He...he....never having been the latter, I can't say
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Psiomniac Posted Dec 8, 2009
Now...
"And there I was thinking from 'Objective' disagreed with my contextualisation argument."
I never disagreed with the notion of conceptualization. I just found the division of labour problematic.
"So if we treat the addition as either a combination of sets or an extension of the number line from zero then the result is always the same for any addition of the form a+b=c irrespective of the base."
I agree. But this allows that some contextualisation is implicit. Which was what I was hoping for.
"(b) (1+1)+(1+1) = 20 (base 2)"
That's an error. But that doesn't detract from your argument.
"Therefore, if John and Jenny were working in two different base but know this then they will never disagree as to the truth of the other's proposition."
Yes that's true. But that's analogous to relativism isn't it?
"This seems quite different to the situation in which both judge each other in error as to the truth or falsity of the proposition 'Stealing is wrong in context A'."
Well, yes since this isn't like relativism.
"Which leads one to conclude that the sine qua non of moral relativism is that true propositions (made so by being the correlate of an observer dependent fact) should be considered relative only if they contain irreducible indexicals."
What is at issue is what essential/irreducible/ineliminable means. Joyce used one of those terms. You gave an example where eliminating indexicals gave non-contradictory propositions, then another where it did. how do we proceed?
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Psiomniac Posted Dec 8, 2009
Sorry, too late to proof read:
"I never disagreed with the notion of conceptualization. I just found the division of labour problematic."
should have read:
"I never disagreed with the notion of contextualization. I just found the division of labour problematic."
Sorry.
ttfn
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Psiomniac Posted Dec 8, 2009
Sorry, imported Russian vodka...
"What is at issue is what essential/irreducible/ineliminable means. Joyce used one of those terms. You gave an example where eliminating indexicals gave non-contradictory propositions, then another where it did. how do we proceed?"
Should have read:
"What is at issue is what essential/irreducible/ineliminable means. Joyce used one of those terms. You gave an example where eliminating indexicals gave non-contradictory propositions, then another where it gave contradictory propositions. How do we proceed?"
Metal Fatigue
jankaas Posted Dec 8, 2009
hi psi,
don't mind at all, am very pleased as it happens since you are able to express the compatibilist position far better.
and the Brucie Bonus is just delightfull! yes i do mean the return of Little Lord Fauntleroy......
funny how he's not rushing in with solid arguments....ho hum.
also apologies to you both for radio silence. part of my weekend was spent clearing drains with a hang over from hell, 'doing' the Xmas tree thing, and then realising that sewage was pouring out of another drain, meaning i neede a Mr O'Reilly to pressure hose my Victorian pipes into shape.....yuk...
so will pick up old threads here soon......
ttfn
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Bx4 Posted Dec 9, 2009
hi psi
Sorry for the delayed reply somewhat engaged in the world.
'This is why I said Joyce doesn't endorse Firth's 'ideal observer' theory.'
I'm unclear why you keep repeating this since I have never said that he did but in the text he does use it as part of his description of the non-relativistic stance towards subjective cognitivism.
'What I mean is that Joyce mentions 'subjectivist relativism' and 'objectivist relativism' but then goes on to make the case that the subjectivist /needent/ be a relativist. '
This could be read as suggesting that a relativist interpretation is the default position. I see nothing in the text to suggest that this is Joyce's position.
'What I mean is that Joyce mentions 'subjectivist relativism' and 'objectivist relativism but then goes on to make the case that the subjectivist /needent/ be a relativist.'
Again this might be read, contrary to the text, as suggesting that the relativist stance is the default position.
'So I was talking about the first part, where Joyce was talking about 'subjectivist relativism' and your response above seems to relate to the second part, where Joyce sketches a way that subjectivists can avoid relativism.'
Again this seems to suggest, contrary to the text, that relativism is the default position.
Also I'm somewhat puzzled by by the comment 'your response above seems to deal with the second part' since much of of my earlier comments relate to the first part, in particular to the assumptions, as articulated by Joyce that the relativist stance holds:
(1) 'that moral claims contain an essential [ineliminable] indexical element'
(2) that this element functions 'such that the truth of any such claim requires relativization to some individual or group'.
However Joyce gives no example of this type of indexical, provides no explanation of how it leads to the 'relativisation' of the truth values of moral propositions or discusses how the relativist stance relates to the cognitivist subjectivist position that some moral propositions are made true by being the correlates of observer dependent moral facts.
This makes it difficult to comment further than I already have. That is that the notion of relativisation of truth values does not seem consistent with classical propositional logic and that the existence of ineliminable indexicals seems problematic.
'you agree that this isn't Joyce's argument as such, he just presents an account of a non-relativist subjectivist stance.'
Indeed, and in precisely the same way, he just presents an account of a a relativist stance so I am unclear as to the point you are making.
'But in any case, regardless of whether somebody, John or Jenny perhaps, adheres to 'ideal observer theory' or not, I don't think that means that what I said is incorrect.'
I am not sure what you are saying here. To what part of what you said are you referring as not being incorrect?
I'm not really clear why the non-relativist stance requires that John or Jenny adhere to ideal observer theory.
Surely it is the proponents of non-relativist stance that Joyce has adopt IOT or some functionally equivalent position for establishing the truth of otherwise of the proposition 'Stealing is wrong' independently of the assertion by John and Jenny?
'That's because, even supposing ideal observer theory were true, it might still be the case that John and Jenny each thinks the other is wrong.'
The text does not bear this interpretation out Joyce is explicit that John and Jenny assert the /same/ proposition, 'Stealing is wrong'.
From SEP 'An assertion is a speech act in which something is claimed to hold' so we can reasonably assume that Joyce is saying that John and Jenny /both/ hold that the proposition, 'Stealing is wrong' is true.
So I am unclear what in the text leads you assume that 'it might still be the case that John and Jenny each thinks the other is wrong'.
I read the text:
//According to this view [relativism as previously defined], it is possible that when John asserts “Stealing is wrong” he is saying something true, but that when Jenny asserts “Stealing is wrong” she is saying something false. //
as Joyce giving an example of the consequences of the prior definition of 'this view' (the relativist stance towards moral claims asserted as true by cognitivist subjectivists).
I read Joyce as saying that 'this view' would be actualised by showing that the assertion of John and Jenny was made respectively true and false by there being 'an essential [ineliminable] indexical element' that allows the relativisation of truth values.
Moreover I'm not sure why one would need to suppose ideal observer theory were true. Joyce seems not to be saying anything more than that IOT is one, of several instrumental devices, that allow proponents of the (relation designating) non-relativistic stance to remove indexicals from propositions.
Once more written in haste so the usual apologies for typos, solecisms, etc., etc
Conjectures and Refutations
Bx4 Posted Dec 9, 2009
hi psi
'.never having been the latter, I can't say'
Neither have I nor have I been a fictionalist compatibilist but this does not stop me from seeing an obvious parallel.
Catch up with the rest later
bsy
Metal Fatigue
Bx4 Posted Dec 9, 2009
hi jank
The ontology of drains puts the quasi-ontology of determinism in perspective.
My adamantium resolve stay in place which is just as well since I think I am more in agreement with Forbin over compatibilism (which I find even queerer that 'moral properties)than I am with you or psi.
Fortunately, however as he has not abjured argumenta ad homines I am unable to get involved. What luck!
Don't quite see how if you are an advocate of strict causal determinisn you can be a compatibilist and if you don't advocate strict causal determinism then you are effectively an indeterminist and don't need to be a compatibilist' I'm probably missing some tricky Lillehammer gambit .......so it goes.
One thing i find odd it that everybody pretty much accept Kant's unconvincing cop-out account of causation. Russell I think had it right about the soporific.
bsy
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
Psiomniac Posted Dec 9, 2009
Morning Bx4,
Despite my attempts at patch and mend, everything seems even more tangled than before. Its no wonder there are so many denominations of Christianity-they have a whole Bible to interpret whereas we are talking about a half page article, and our dialogue is many times longer than the article itself, still with no sign of resolution.
I blame me
I'll have a think, try to do some rereading and collating, then I'll have one more go.
I hope your engagement with the world is less tangly
ttfn
A Veritable Slew of Gordian Knots.........
Bx4 Posted Dec 9, 2009
hi psi
'I blame me'
I blamed me too but I have decided to blame Joyce instead.
'we are talking about a half page article, and our dialogue is many times longer than the article itself,'
I think that is the problem. The supplement is too short and has too many lacunae.
Here my attempt to cut the Gordian Knot.
Joyce gives two accounts of cognitive subjectivism, one relativist and the other non-relativist.
He introduces John and Jenny who both assert 'stealing is wrong'.
He then says from the relativist stance it is possible to say that John's assertion is true while from the non-relativist stance this is not possible.
The difference between the two stances pivot on the status of indexicals in moral claims.
In the relativist stance there is an 'essential indexical element' that allow the truth values of the claims to be relativised to some individual or group. In the non-relavist stance there are no 'ineliminable indexicals' and not only can there be no relativisation but it is possible to determine the single non-relative truth value of a moral claim.
Unfortunately this is where I start having difficulty with the account.
Joyce sketches a chain of reasoning that involves a 'relation designating' account of the non-relativistic stance.
Now I don't as non-congnivist agree with the account but as I said I can follow the chain of reasoning.
I find myself in a quite different position with Joyce's account of the relativist stance since he provides a premise the 'essential indexical element and a conclusion 'the relativisation of truth values' but no chain of reasoning.
Since I can find no 'essential indexical element' in moral claims nor can I see how the stance deals with the existence and function of moral facts I am somewhat stuck.
must
bsy
A Veritable Slew of Gordian Knots.........
Psiomniac Posted Dec 9, 2009
Hi Bx4,
Now, see, I think that's a really good clear summary and I can't find anything with which to disagree therein. In fact it seems very close to my own experience of trying to understand the article.
Time for me to do that thinking before coming back to this I suspect!
By the way, on compatibilism, do you think we have free will?
A Veritable Slew of Gordian Knots.........
Bx4 Posted Dec 9, 2009
hi psi
' I think that's a really good clear summary'
Thanks though I had to cover the ground to draw the map.
'I can't find anything with which to disagree therein.'
Not since 'Faith'......
One error due to rush, I said
'He then says from the relativist stance it is possible to say that John's assertion is true while from the non-relativist stance this is not possible.'
I meant to say:
'He then says from the relativist stance it is possible to say that John's assertion is true and that Jenny's assertion is false while from the non-relativist stance this is not possible.'
I hope this doesn't affect our concord.
Me too. While I had come across indexicals before I had not in the context of relativism. I've started to a little preliminary digging and I turned up the abstract of one paper that made an interesting distinction:
'The main purpose of this paper is to characterize and compare two forms any relativist thesis can take: indexical relativism and genuine relativism. Indexical relativists claim that the implicit indexicality of certain sentences is the only source of relativity. Genuine relativists, by contrast, claim that there is relativity not just at the level of sentences, but also at propositional level.'
http://philpapers.org/rec/KLBITV
I'm also starting to look into how relativism works in relation to non-factualist meta-ethical stances since neither 'indexical relativism' nor 'genuine relativism' would seem to apply.
'By the way, on compatibilism, do you think we have free will?'
'Free will' has become such a portmanteau term that I can't answer that but the compatiblist stance which seems to rely on Humpty Dumpty semantics does not seen to me persuasive.
However since I think that is extremely unlikely that the hypothesis of universal necessary causal determinism will be be demonstrated over the domain of all past, current, and future events the whole debate seems rather pointless.
bsy
A Veritable Slew of Gordian Knots.........
Psiomniac Posted Dec 10, 2009
Evening Bx4,
That article looks like it might be interesting. I'll see whether I can get to it tomorrow. it might be just the thing to move things on.
I agree that Free Will as a term could be imagined as referring to any member of a set whose sole criterion for membership was family resemblance to at least one other member and which includes various flavours of libertarian and compatibilist versions.
So if you are reluctant to declare on the matter fair enough.
I don't think the precarious status of the deterministic thesis renders the debate pointless though.
ttfn
ah...the sound of silence....can you hear it?
jankaas Posted Dec 11, 2009
dear both,
finally have the house (briefly) to myself, so a good time to catch up a little.
drains; Mr O'Reilly was super swift and was kind enough to send a variety of different rotor-disconfabulatory-crustpulverising-thingumagigs down all drains. for 65 quid a very fair deal!
sure i don't know Bored what you meant by comparing the free will thread with drain contents...
Talks Without Lingo; seems to have done an Elvis and left the building. damn shame as i had some v good copy/paste in the wings. ah well, so it goes...
Russell; coming to the tail end now, have gone over Kant. but Russell seems strangely brief so am not sure exactly what i've picked up from the great man. seems to be more than a little useful to speak fluent German as 'anschauung' and other terms don't appear to cross the language divide. have tried to inflict my own tongue on it which may help, only time will tell.
far funnier is Hegel! what a hoot. i hadn't realised that US Neo-Cons are followers of Hegel (re the view that war is good/neccesary) with all the inevtitable descent into Nazi thinking. hilarious imho.
but once i'm through this book i won't be moving straight onto Passmore. i know my limitations and need a different subject matter for a bit.
wired for sound; so any The Sweet tracks still doing it for you Bored? just wondering. also regarding the best set up for listening to music. for me it is my old faithfull Sony Discman and a set of mid-price in-ear headphones. because i have had it forever and a day i can readily compare sonic values etc. i've also grown very fond of my bog standard Dell pc speakers (no sub woofer etc, just 2 little desk top speakers). if something sounds great on that then imho it 'is' a great recording. with every good producer i've ever worked with we'd always spend a certain amount of time listening back on small, not very good speakers (sometimes even in mono for radio purposes). 99/100 times a flaw that showed on the small fry speakers would be worth fixing and culminate in even huger sounds on the big boy speaker systems.
there, and anorak back on the peg.....
ttfn
Key: Complain about this post
Problematic donkeys, anaphora and other fauna
- 861: Psiomniac (Dec 5, 2009)
- 862: Psiomniac (Dec 5, 2009)
- 863: Bx4 (Dec 7, 2009)
- 864: Bx4 (Dec 7, 2009)
- 865: Bx4 (Dec 7, 2009)
- 866: Psiomniac (Dec 8, 2009)
- 867: Psiomniac (Dec 8, 2009)
- 868: Psiomniac (Dec 8, 2009)
- 869: Psiomniac (Dec 8, 2009)
- 870: jankaas (Dec 8, 2009)
- 871: Psiomniac (Dec 8, 2009)
- 872: Bx4 (Dec 9, 2009)
- 873: Bx4 (Dec 9, 2009)
- 874: Bx4 (Dec 9, 2009)
- 875: Psiomniac (Dec 9, 2009)
- 876: Bx4 (Dec 9, 2009)
- 877: Psiomniac (Dec 9, 2009)
- 878: Bx4 (Dec 9, 2009)
- 879: Psiomniac (Dec 10, 2009)
- 880: jankaas (Dec 11, 2009)
More Conversations for Bx4
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."