Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 21:27:21 GMT

  • Next message: RycheWorld@aol.com: "Re: MD driving force in human affairs"

    Matt:
    Still don't see how I've avoided your "problem". You are right, we do not
    decide the answer without trying the rock in the bucket. The pragmatist
    rendering of the experiment is, you start with the hypothesis "the rock will
    fit in the red bucket" and you do the experiment. The experiment causes you
    to believe either "the bucket fits the rock" or "the bucket does not fit the
    rock", and depending on which it is, the new belief will either cohere with
    the hypothesis or contradict the hypothesis. Coherence means a good
    hypothesis, contradiction means you throw it out.

    DM: Sorry Matt, the rock fits the bucket is not a belief it is a fact, a
    critical realist accepts that facts only exist within
    a conceptual framework, but when we test our theories we are dealing with
    the sort of factual stuff that has made science
    the success it is. And when the thoery is confronted with experience that
    does not fit the facts you have to recognise the
    limitations of the theory or dump it. Although this is all much more
    interesting when we argue about conceptual schemes like SOM/MOQ or the
    pragmatist 'I don't think I have a conceptual scheme'. When I say Rorty is a
    grand narrative pessimist I think he is much more happy to live with the
    current fragmentation of knowledge than I am.

    Regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 8:39 PM
    Subject: Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?

    > David,
    >
    > David said:
    > I suggest that Rorty is pretty averse to grand narratives but I see this
    as a form of pessimism. You seem to disagree with him here.
    >
    > Matt:
    > If we take "grand narrative" to be equated with "philosophy" in Sellars'
    sense ('the attempt to see how things, in the widest possible sense, fit
    together, in the widest possible sense'), then Rorty has no theoretical
    problem with grand narratives, though personally he may not find much use
    for them. Even on this though, I think Rorty does have a personal use for a
    grand narrative, but its only in his private sphere that it is applicable.
    I think at most we should say that Rorty distrusts public grand narratives.
    >
    > However, I don't see the connection between pessimism/optimism and
    narratives, grand or otherwise. The only reason I can think of that you'd
    attribute pessimism or optimism to the trust or distrust of grand narratives
    is that you place intrinsic higher value on bigger, more grandiose
    narratives. Pragmatists don't buy this, though. They value each narrative,
    grand or small, based on its utility, or to put it the other way around,
    they utilize each narrative based on its value.
    >
    > David said:
    > I think you have avoided considering my bucket/rock/fitting problem. What
    is the status of 'fitting' in a truth is agreement approach to knowledge? We
    do not decide the answer without trying the rock in the bhucket. We
    certainly agree to the bucket test before hand, but then we have to do the
    test to divide the rocks into useful and non-useful ones.
    >
    > Matt:
    > Still don't see how I've avoided your "problem". You are right, we do not
    decide the answer without trying the rock in the bucket. The pragmatist
    rendering of the experiment is, you start with the hypothesis "the rock will
    fit in the red bucket" and you do the experiment. The experiment causes you
    to believe either "the bucket fits the rock" or "the bucket does not fit the
    rock", and depending on which it is, the new belief will either cohere with
    the hypothesis or contradict the hypothesis. Coherence means a good
    hypothesis, contradiction means you throw it out.
    >
    > Matt
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 21:32:40 GMT