Planetarion Forums - View Single Post - OK GD people, which book are you reading now?

Bugsby · 20 Jan 2007, 20:01

I think we're just reading Nodrog's original scenario differently. You are reading the statement "your mum is fat" only as a conclusion derived from the evidence of the photo. That conclusion is clearly invalid. The way I am reading it is that it is both a conclusion derived from the photographic evidence, as well as an additional premise to the entire argument. As I read it, Nodrog is saying that you have a belief based on (bad) evidence, and it also happens to be the case that this belief is true.

I think I have a good reason for reading the scenario this way. Nodrog's first response was to another poster saying they had read a review of epistemology, and this is a standard scenario in epistemology - when someone has a reason to believe something based on evidence that turns out to be bad, but the belief is still true. Another example would be me looking at the clock on the wall and coming to believe that it is 1:30 pm because that's what the clock says. Unbeknownst to me, the clock stopped at 1:30 last night, so it doesn't really give me a good reason to believe anything about the time. However, it does just happen to be 1:30 pm. This case is exactly analagous to my reading of Nodrog's post, and thus I believe it is the correct one. But Nodrog's first post is so gramatically indeterminate that I don't want to insist on my reading over yours, at the risk of this becoming an incredibly stupid argument, instead of just a rather stupid argument.

Also, I take issue with your analysis of truth. You say that, if there is no way to know whether "your mum is fat" is true or false, then it is neither true nor false. Or perhaps both true and false. But that cannot be the case. There is clearly a fact of the matter over whether or not your mum is fat. There is an actual state of affairs. And according to my dictionary (which I do keep handy)

True
1 a : STEADFAST, LOYAL b : HONEST, JUST c archaic : TRUTHFUL
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true> b : IDEAL, ESSENTIAL c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed <the true dimension of the problem> d : CONSISTENT <true to character>

So if it is the case that your mum is fat, then the belief that your mum is fat IS true.

The reason I'm making this argument at all was because your first post may well have been a joke, but if so, it was certainly a joke at my expense. You are insulting me by calling me wrong, which I'm really not, and thus I defend my honor.

20 Jan 2007, 20:01	#79
Bugsby Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 17	Re: OK GD people, which book are you reading now? I think we're just reading Nodrog's original scenario differently. You are reading the statement "your mum is fat" only as a conclusion derived from the evidence of the photo. That conclusion is clearly invalid. The way I am reading it is that it is both a conclusion derived from the photographic evidence, as well as an additional premise to the entire argument. As I read it, Nodrog is saying that you have a belief based on (bad) evidence, and it also happens to be the case that this belief is true. I think I have a good reason for reading the scenario this way. Nodrog's first response was to another poster saying they had read a review of epistemology, and this is a standard scenario in epistemology - when someone has a reason to believe something based on evidence that turns out to be bad, but the belief is still true. Another example would be me looking at the clock on the wall and coming to believe that it is 1:30 pm because that's what the clock says. Unbeknownst to me, the clock stopped at 1:30 last night, so it doesn't really give me a good reason to believe anything about the time. However, it does just happen to be 1:30 pm. This case is exactly analagous to my reading of Nodrog's post, and thus I believe it is the correct one. But Nodrog's first post is so gramatically indeterminate that I don't want to insist on my reading over yours, at the risk of this becoming an incredibly stupid argument, instead of just a rather stupid argument. Also, I take issue with your analysis of truth. You say that, if there is no way to know whether "your mum is fat" is true or false, then it is neither true nor false. Or perhaps both true and false. But that cannot be the case. There is clearly a fact of the matter over whether or not your mum is fat. There is an actual state of affairs. And according to my dictionary (which I do keep handy) True 1 a : STEADFAST, LOYAL b : HONEST, JUST c archaic : TRUTHFUL 2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true> b : IDEAL, ESSENTIAL c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed <the true dimension of the problem> d : CONSISTENT <true to character> So if it is the case that your mum is fat, then the belief that your mum is fat IS true. The reason I'm making this argument at all was because your first post may well have been a joke, but if so, it was certainly a joke at my expense. You are insulting me by calling me wrong, which I'm really not, and thus I defend my honor.