Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2nox6.M7s@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <850763548snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbE2JCJG.HLn@netcom.com> <850875571snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:24:42 GMT
Lines: 57
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50154 comp.ai:42902

In article <850875571snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbE2JCJG.HLn@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:
>
>> In article <850763548snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
>> David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Oh.. I see, Quine misunderstands it too.....
>> >
>> >    'In general the underlying methodology of the idioms  of 
>> >    propositional  attitude  contrasts strikingly  with  the 
>> >    spirit of objective science at its most  representative. 
>> >    For consider again quotation, direct and indirect.  When 
>> >    we quote a man's utterance directly we report it  almost 
>> >    as  we  might  a  bird  call.  However  significant  the 
>> >    utterance, direct quotation merely reports the  physical 
>> >    incident and leaves any implications to us.
>> 
>> Since the implications to us are what counts, whereas that is not the case
>> with bird calls, it seems quite evident that Quine is misunderstanding.
>> 
>
>You  really  don't understand do you? The implications  here  are 
>logical  implications based on de dicto accounts. If  I  reported 
>that  Oedipus  said  he  wanted to sleep  with  his  mother,  the 
>implications  you would draw would be quite different from  if  I 
>accurately reported that he said "I want to sleep with Jocasta". 

I already pointed out that the discussion doesn't end there, since I'm drawing
implications in either case, and it is in the drawing of implications, whether
by the intermediary or the final recipient, that the problems lie.  Since that
entails that the implications would be different, your conclusion that I don't
understand shows what a simpleton you are.  Your comments about Hubey alerted
me to look for this, and I'm now seeing that the problem is not merely your
arrogance, but the combination of that with the fact that you just don't
reason very deeply.

>I really don't want to waste any more time arguing this.

Since you never get further then your simple statement above, you never offer
a real argument.  This is like Hubey, who keeps going "see, n! isn't in N for
all N", which is not what anyone disputed, and never addresses the points made
by others.  You guys are exactly the nefarious sorts that Quine talks about;
you have no interest in an exchange, you just want to get everyone to agree
with you.

>Once you 
>HAVE  seen  the  problem,  the  problem  for  the  more   removed 
>propositional attitudes makes "cognitive science" in many  guises 
>come  tumbling down all over the place.

Sounds like Hubey.  A argument is needed here, not just opinionated
handwaving.


-- 
<J Q B>

