Hi Craig, C.S. Pierce: "A moment's thought will show that a variety of facts are already assumed when the logical question is first asked. It is implied, for instance, that there are such states of mind as doubt and belief -- that a passage from one to the other is possible, the object of thought remaining the same, and that this transition is subject to some rules by which all minds are alike bound. As these are facts which we must already know before we can have any clear conception of reasoning at all, it cannot be supposed to be any longer of much interest to inquire into their truth or falsity. "
Steve: Note that the facts about the "transition [from premises to conclusions] is subject to some rules by which all minds are alike bound" are also norms about how deductions ought to be made. Here we see what Putnam termed "the entanglement of facts and values." An assertion of fact can be an assertion that a norm ought to be respected. Such a fact very obviously presupposes a value, but even facts such as "Socrates is a man" presupposes human purposes for describing him that way. Why assert this fact instead of some other fact if not based on some value commitments? While it is true that Socrates is a man, we can still ask why you chose to describe him as a man and not as a philosopher or as an adult homo sapiens or a ten-toed mammal if not based on certain values for choosing one rather than another among an infinitude of possible descriptions of Socrates. Also, describing him as a man is to say that he properly fits that category of description. This "proper fit" is no value-neutral notion. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
