Oooooh dmb, I would love to see that survey. Maybe it was done by NPR which is a branch of the Obama government, or was it MSNBC, or ABC or CBS, or some other outdated news, or some propagandist survey infiltration. Have you seen the ratings for Fox News? I suppose what you are saying is that most Americans are poorly informed. Poorly informed about what? Who makes the rules as to what is informed? Are you the czar of what information is good and what is poor? You are stretching your notion of Truth a bit far here, and you should know better. Perhaps you need some more information! It is this stupid notion of what is good information and what is bad, and that we need experts to tell us these things that I find somewhat Naive.
Mark On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said to dmb: > My point is just that it [the pragmatic theory of truth] doesn't do what you > are claiming it does in geting something over on Rorty. You can't do anything > that he can't do without claiming that theory. > > dmb says: > But Steve, since you don't understand the theory, you cannot even begin to > make such a claim? It's not a claim about the theory. It's merely a > confession of your own lack of understanding. You're only saying that it > doesn't do anything for YOU. > > There was a survey not too long ago showing that FOX news watchers were very > poorly informed compared to those who got their news from National Public > Radio. That's not very surprising, right? A more recent survey showed that > FOX news viewers were very poorly informed even compared to those who consume > no news at all. In other words, the people who know nothing are still better > informed than people who watch FOX news. While Rortyism is a heck of a lot > more respectable than FOX, you're are similarly afflicted. By analogy, the > people who know nothing about the MOQ are still better informed than you. At > least they know that they don't know but you are looking at the MOQ thru a > neo-pragmatic filter that distorts everything so that you can't see how much > you don't know. And you're not even going to try to understand the theory > because you think you already do. But as I tried to show already, you can't > even distinguish this truth theory from mysticism. This level of > comprehension i > s less than zero, Steve. We're talking negative numbers. > > > > dmb said: > I don't know how to make it any clearer, Steve. Pragmatism IS the method of > testing. It is a method for settling disputes between rival metaphysical > visions. It is a method for separating real debates from mere verbal disputes. > > > > > Steve replied: > You are missing the point. The point is that to whatever extent pragmatism is > a method of testing, it is not something ruled out as "non-conversational > constraints on inquiry." It is just a description of some of the usual ways > we go about inquiring. > > > > dmb says: > Yep, this is one of those cases where you seem to know less than nothing. > You'd really be better off approaching the question from a naive, > unphilosophical perspective, one where the concepts aren't all tangled up in > Rortyisms. If you could only put some fresh eyes on the matter, you'd see > that your "point" is completely implausible. Just look at what you are > saying... > > James's pragmatism says ideas are made true (or not) in experience, which > means there are empirical constraints. > Rorty's pragmatism says conversation is the only constraint on inquiry, which > means there are no such empirical constraints. > Therefore, > Rorty's denial of all non-conversational constraints does not deny James's > empirical, non-conversational constraints?!? Such a conclusion violates > common sense and basic logic and common sense, not to mention basic logic and > common sense. > > You really don't see how bogus that is? You really can't how empirical > constraints differ from conversational constraints? If the conversational > constraints are the only kind, then where does that leave empirical > constraints? Saying they haven't been ruled out is a violation of basic logic > and common sense and basic logic. > > Experience is everything to my pragmatists and words are everything to yours. > This difference is epic and by trying to compare Rortyism with the MOQ, you > (and Matt) just end up cutting the heart out of the MOQ. Every part of it > gets all whacked out of shape, not just the big stuff like mysticism and > morality but even little things like the free will resolution and the theory > of truth. There is no room in your cup because it's full of Rortyism. Like a > FOX viewer, your cup full of the wrong stuff. You'd be better off with an > empty cup. > > > > > > > > > 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 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
