Marsha said to dmb:
You have yet to produce a persuasive argument. Your tactic is more to present a
quote and ask the person to 'think about it,' or write "you should be able to
see that for yourself." I've not seen a persuasive argument or an explanation
of what you present as evidence. Have you had any classes in formal and
informal logic?
dmb says:
If my arguments were unpersuasive because the evidence was not relevant or
because they were not logical then you would be able to refute them by showing
this. But you never have. Here's your chance. For you convenience, I have
reproduce one of my most recent arguments against your relativism. It is the
very thing you deny, namely an explanation and interpretation of the quote you
use as evidence for relativism. Go ahead, tell us what's wrong with this
argument. Tell us why it does not persuade you. Point out the flaws in my
logic. I'm betting you won't. I'm betting that you can not and I fully expect
nothing but insults and evasions. Surprise me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
dmb said:
... I don't think Ant was being careless and I do not disagree with what he's
saying. I just think Marsha is reading it badly. She's resting her case on
Ant's use of the term "relative" in describing the provisionality of truth. To
say that truth is relative to a particular historical context simply means that
truth is not eternal, that it evolves, that it is never final. But that doesn't
mean that truth is JUST a matter of perspective. Provisional truths are still
constrained by empirical reality. They still have to agree with experience and
function as the best possible explanation as we move into further experience.
As James puts it, the pragmatist is "pent in" more than anyone. Pragmatic
truths exist "between the whole body of funded truths squeezed from the past",
he says, "and the coercions of the world of sense". In other words, the truth
is constrained by the mythos in which it's stated AND by the empirical reality
in which it's used. This empirical reality is not conceived as a material
reality but it is still a very strong form of empiricism. And that is very
different from relativism.
Richard Rorty, for example, is accused of relativism because he denies the
possibility of empiricism - or any kind of epistemology. He thinks truth is not
something philosophers should even discuss. And since Rorty is the main reviver
of pragmatism, James and Dewey scholars have been defending the classical
pragmatists against charges or relativism all over again. Defending against
this charge has literally been going on for a hundred years. As we can see in
James's complaints about pragmatism's "impudent slanderers", defense against
this charge began while the thing was still being invented.
We're supposed to be persuaded by the arguments and the evidence and this is
CONTRASTED with arguments from authority. Arguments from authority are based on
the assumption that "Thee Truth" is the sole property of some thing or other.
If you believe the bible is the written word of God, for example, there is no
way to argue against that no matter what the evidence is.
Marsha and others seem to be confused about the difference between traditional
forms of social and political "authority" and intellectual "authority". The
latter simply refers to a competent or reliable source of information. That
kind of authority is based on a very reasonable belief, namely that we like to
rely on people who know what they're talking about. I do not think this kind of
authority is any cause for alarm. Nobody should feel persecuted or oppressed by
an encyclopedia entry or a quote from the text we're discussing. Frankly, I
think that kind of reaction is completely ridiculous. What kind of mind resents
the use of openly shared meanings and handy public resources?
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
