Skepticism and Belief

@nerdfiles,

How is this:

kennathamy wrote:

The dictionary reports how educated writers of the language spell the word (at the time the dictionary was published)

contradicting this:

nerdfiles wrote:

Grammarians and lexicographers map spellings to the habits of linguistic practice

I've taken a look at post #152, and it seems to me you misunderstood him. Never did he state they invent anything: He said they (lexicographers) map (scientific induction) from the habits of writers (the "educated writers" you ramble on about). If they *invented* the mappings, that would mean they have control over linguistic practice. This is absurd, and I don't believe he ever stated this. He noted there is no justification, only description, and the reports are scientific approximations. You seem to offer correction where no correction is needed.

@nerdfiles,

That user makes me want to cry and hit things.

@kennethamy,

1. The justified belief is true (JTB).
2. The justified belief is false (JFB).
3. The justified belief cannot be shown to be either true or false (JT/FB).

kennethamy wrote:

What I don't agree with, or rather do not understand, is 3, as I said. And I don't see what you mean when you say that what you have written can also apply to 3. So, please clarify.

Henry believes it is raining, since it is cloudy, and there is water falling against the window. He is justified in believing it, because there is evidence to support his belief, and he is not thinking illogically. I, on the other hand, believe that what we are witnessing is the automatic sprinkler system. My belief is justified also, because I do, in fact, have a sprinkler system, and it is set to go on automatically every afternoon. But Henry and I are too lazy, too drunk, or too pre-occupied with the football game on TV to verify which of our beliefs is, in fact, true. Next day, reflecting on our dilemma, we realize that we both had justified beliefs, but it is now impossible to verify which belief was true. Weather reports show that there was rain in our area during the period of time in question, and, though I know what time the sprinkler system is set for, we cannot substantiate what time it was when we had the disagreement.

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

1. The justified belief is true (JTB).
2. The justified belief is false (JFB).
3. The justified belief cannot be shown to be either true or false (JT/FB).

Henry believes it is raining, since it is cloudy, and there is water falling against the window. He is justified in believing it, because there is evidence to support his belief, and he is not thinking illogically. I, on the other hand, believe that what we are witnessing is the automatic sprinkler system. My belief is justified also, because I do, in fact, have a sprinkler system, and it is set to go on automatically every afternoon. But Henry and I are too lazy, too drunk, or too pre-occupied with the football game on TV to verify which of our beliefs is, in fact, true. Next day, reflecting on our dilemma, we realize that we both had justified beliefs, but it is now impossible to verify which belief was true. Weather reports show that there was rain in our area during the period of time in question, and, though I know what time the sprinkler system is set for, we cannot substantiate what time it was when we had the disagreement.

Now that is a Gettier-esque problem. Bravo. Fun to read as well.

But now it becomes a matter of which proposition will stand in for the propositional variable.

Are both friends entertaining the exact same proposition?

Now the distinction must be made clear between statement and proposition.

When we say "p" stands in for "it is raining", we must understand that "it is raining" is fuzzy. What exactly is "it"? If we're going on intuitions here, we might as well stop now. "It rained yesterday" might help us some. If it did rain yesterday, then the guy with the sprinkler system justification did not know. His justification was insufficient or it was the wrong kind of justification. He might not be able to see it, but we see it given that we are observers to this problem. Given our meta-knowledge (because it is a thought experiment) we see that there is no paradox or problem. The guy with the sprinkler system justification simply had the wrong kind of justification; if we told him this, he'd easily give up his claim to knowing. And there's a strong and dubious assumption that we have to buy: Just assume that sprinkler systems spout off water in such a way that is qualitatively indistinguishable from rain.

Okay, fine. Suppose the bio-dome example. And we have to suppose that we can produce rain in such a way as nature does. And we have to subtract all the other qualitative features of real rain from faux rain. Who knew we had to paint the world into black and white to get our epistemologies off the ground! The presumption--that we can do such a thing--comes from Descartes in the First Meditation. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. It's where Descartes just says, "Hey, dreaming is qualitative indistinguishable from waking life."

Our little thought experiments are qualitatively indistinguishable from real world cases. Really? A thought experiment? Impressive! Je pense donc je suis indeed!

A statement is the expression of a proposition. But a statement can leave detail out. But X might consider "it is raining" to mean "it is raining right now" while Y might consider it to mean "the weather is about to begin raining" or perhaps "the weather is in a mode of 'raining' but overhead rain is not coming down within region X where we are standing at the moment".

It is important to come to terms between your players in your thought experiment. The statements in your proposition do not guarantee that the players in the experiment have the exact same belief. Further, the kind of justification given will shape the proposition but not necessarily the statement which is the linguistic expression of that proposition.

The proposition is a non-linguistic entity.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

How is this:

contradicting this:

I've taken a look at post #152, and it seems to me you misunderstood him. Never did he state they invent anything: He said they (lexicographers) map (scientific induction) from the habits of writers (the "educated writers" you ramble on about). If they *invented* the mappings, that would mean they have control over linguistic practice. This is absurd, and I don't believe he ever stated this. He noted there is no justification, only description, and the reports are scientific approximations. You seem to offer correction where no correction is needed.

Then what do you think that, "All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary. Yes, of course it is true that the dictionary has that spelling because, well, the dictionary does have that spelling." means? Do you think that it means that the dictionary has that spelling because the dictionary, or the editors, simply decide that "weird" is spelled that way, and have no reason to think so? I do. And I think that is wrong. I think that the editors of the dictionary have good reasons to think that "weird" is the correct spelling of that word. Don't you?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Then what do you think that, "All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary. Yes, of course it is true that the dictionary has that spelling because, well, the dictionary does have that spelling." means? Do you think that it means that the dictionary has that spelling because the dictionary, or the editors, simply decide that "weird" is spelled that way, and have no reason to think so? I do. And I think that is wrong. I think that the editors of the dictionary have good reasons to think that "weird" is the correct spelling of that word. Don't you?

[INDENT]All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary. Yes, of course it is true that the dictionary has that spelling because, well, the dictionary does have that spelling.
[/INDENT]
reduces to (is just a long-winded way of saying):

[INDENT]That would establish that the dictionary does have that spelling.
[/INDENT]
Where do you see "decide" or any notion of decision?

Look. Again, you're being self-contradictory. LOOK at what I put in bold from you. How is "decision" not the same as "think"? Do decisions not involve thought? What do you mean by "decision" and "to think"?

In any case, the lexicographers observe the spellings and tradition of spelling and choose the spellings which are the best statistical samples of the spelling overall. Choosing is a decision procedure. The sample itself "captures" more or less the other spellings. It is an approximation of the spelling for that community of language users.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Then what do you think that, "All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary. Yes, of course it is true that the dictionary has that spelling because, well, the dictionary does have that spelling." means?

I think it means the dictionary is merely a vessel for the findings of a scientist.

Quote:

Do you think that it means that the dictionary has that spelling because the dictionary, or the editors, simply decide that "weird" is spelled that way, and have no reason to think so? I do.

I don't. At least not in the way I believe you're interpreting. The scientists are not deciding anything insofar as making a decision to how a word is spelled. They're recording linguistic practice! There is no conscious decision here outside the realm of their scientific research (I can't tell if you're implying this, or not), there is only conscious recording of linguistic practice.

Quote:

And I think that is wrong. I think that the editors of the dictionary have good reasons to think that "weird" is the correct spelling of that word. Don't you?

Having a good reason to believe a word is spelled a certain way, and deciding how a word should be spelled, are two different things. The lexicographer does not perform the latter, he simply comes to "good reason" based on practice findings and induction. The lexicographer can't just decide one day "weird" is spelled "weard".

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Having a good reason to believe a word is spelled a certain way, and deciding how a word should be spelled, are two different things. The lexicographer does not perform the latter, he simply comes to "good reason" based on practice findings and induction. The lexicographer can't just decide one day "weird" is spelled "weard".

My emphasis. This bit is spot on. Good distinction.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

It is important to come to terms between your players in your thought experiment. The statements in your proposition do not guarantee that the players in the experiment have the exact same belief. Further, the kind of justification given will shape the proposition but not necessarily the statement which is the linguistic expression of that proposition.

The proposition is a non-linguistic entity.

How in the world can we continue this conversation having these four sentences standing in the way?

You've illustrated (and yes, you did too, Dichanthelium - thanks for your insights) just how subjective the matter really is [in finding the necessary and sufficient conditions for the "belief" we're speaking]. We must "come to terms" with each character in each thought experiment, lest we hit our heads against semantic rambling. My head is a bloody pulp, by the way.

So, I ask now after 17 pages: How on earth can we continue this after knowing each thought experiment conjured begs the question for "What did X mean by Y"? How can we come to a general conclusion about any "belief" when meaning applied to words varies so greatly?

I'm feeling almost fooled by the entire thread. We've been playing with words here for days, playing with entities, that, you're right, aren't linguistic at all. I've been forcing my interpretations into language, and it's really only made me more confused.

Where do we go from here?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Having a good reason to believe a word is spelled a certain way, and deciding how a word should be spelled, are two different things. The lexicographer does not perform the latter, he simply comes to "good reason" based on practice findings and induction. The lexicographer can't just decide one day "weird" is spelled "weard".

Yes they are very different. The question is what you think was meant by, "All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary". I think that suggests that it was the dictionary that decided that "weird" was spelled that way. Otherwise, what does the word "all" mean there. I took it as meaning, "only", so that what was being said was that it was only the dictionary that decided that was the spelling of "weird". And that is, of course, wrong. The dictionary reports that is the correct spelling of "weird" because that is how "weird" is spelled by educated writers of the language. If that is true, do you think that Nerdfiles is correct when he writes, "I AM SAYING THAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, AND APPEALING TO THE DICTIONARY WOULD ONLY ESTABLISH THAT THE DICITONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS"? Doesn't appealing to the dictionary establish that the term "weird" is spelled that way because educated writers of English spell "weird" that way? So, appealing to the dictionary is much more than simply showing that the dictionary "says what it says", for appealing to the dictionary is to appeal to the fact that educated writers of the language spell the term, "weird" in that way, and so, give a good reason for thinking that is how the term, "weird" ought to be spelled. And, that is why the dictionary is used as an authority on how words ought to be spelled.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Yes they are very different. The question is what you think was meant by, "All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary". I think that suggests that it was the dictionary that decided that "weird" was spelled that way. Otherwise, what does the word "all" mean there. I took it as meaning, "only", so that what was being said was that it was only the dictionary that decided that was the spelling of "weird". And that is, of course, wrong. The dictionary reports that is the correct spelling of "weird" because that is how "weird" is spelled by educated writers of the language. If that is true, do you think that Nerdfiles is correct when he writes, "I AM SAYING THAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, AND APPEALING TO THE DICTIONARY WOULD ONLY ESTABLISH THAT THE DICITONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS"? Doesn't appealing to the dictionary establish that the term "weird" is spelled that way because educated writers of English spell "weird" that way? So, appealing to the dictionary is much more than simply showing that the dictionary "says what it says", for appealing to the dictionary is to appeal to the fact that educated writers of the language spell the term, "weird" in that way, and so, give a good reason for thinking that is how the term, "weird" ought to be spelled. And, that is why the dictionary is used as an authority on how words ought to be spelled.

I think before he answers that question, and you continue to ignore mine, you need to explain where you're getting the concept of decision in what you quoted from me.

"All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary"

Where is the "decision"?

"I AM SAYING THAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, AND APPEALING TO THE DICTIONARY WOULD ONLY ESTABLISH THAT THE DICITONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS"

Where is the "decision"?

Really, these two statements are tautologies.

@nerdfiles,

kennethamy wrote:

The question is what you think was meant by, "All that would establish is that "weird" is spelled that way according to a dictionary". I think that suggests that it was the dictionary that decided that "weird" was spelled that way. Otherwise, what does the word "all" mean there.

I thought I answered your question rather directly. It was the absolute first sentence I typed. He wasn't implying the dictionary is doing anything. What are you talking about? As noted, the dictionary is merely a vessel for scientific findings. The dictionary doesn't report, lexicographers report.

Quote:

Doesn't appealing to the dictionary establish that the term "weird" is spelled that way because educated writers of English spell "weird" that way? So, appealing to the dictionary is much more than simply showing that the dictionary "says what it says", for appealing to the dictionary is to appeal to the fact that educated writers of the language spell the term, "weird" in that way, and so, give a good reason for thinking that is how the term, "weird" ought to be spelled.

The good reason is researched by lexicographers. One of the good reasons, I'd suppose, comes from the habits of educated writers. The findings of habits (good reason for why a word is spelled a certain way) are then reported and placed in a dictionary. What you're misunderstanding is nerdfiles was trying to bridge the gap between justification and convention. The findings placed in the dictionary are based on convention. Therefore, the proposition, "I think weird is spelled "weird", as far as I understand it, can not be justified by the dictionary. The dictionary is a reference, not an authority, the way I see it. There is no conscious endeavor in deciding how a word should be spelled, and therefore no authority. Appeal to Authority does not exist here because in the classic logical illustration of Appeal to Authority:

1.) A makes claim B
2.) there is something positive about A
3.) therefore claim B is true.

There is no A. Because A, in this case, is nothing more than a culmination of the research (linguistic practice) found. There is no conscious entity deciding, and therefore no A exists.

So, yes, you have good reason to believe "weird" is spelled a certain way. But it is the same good reason the lexicographer believes "weird" is spelled a certain way. Lexicographers are not an authority, they are simply recording what you and I practice!

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I thought I answered your question rather directly. It was the absolute first sentence I typed. He wasn't implying the dictionary is doing anything. What are you talking about? As noted, the dictionary is merely a vessel for scientific findings. The dictionary doesn't report, lexicographers report.

The good reason is researched by lexicographers. One of the good reasons, I'd suppose, comes from the habits of educated writers. The findings of habits (good reason for why a word is spelled a certain way) are then reported and placed in a dictionary. What you're misunderstanding is nerdfiles was trying to bridge the gap between justification and convention. The findings placed in the dictionary are based on convention. Therefore, the proposition, "I think weird is spelled "weird", as far as I understand it, can not be justified by the dictionary. The dictionary is a reference, not an authority, the way I see it. There is no conscious endeavor in deciding how a word should be spelled, and therefore no authority. Appeal to Authority does not exist here because in the classic logical illustration of Appeal to Authority:

1.) A makes claim B
2.) there is something positive about A
3.) therefore claim B is true.

There is no A. Because A, in this case, is nothing more than a culmination of the research (linguistic practice) found. There is no conscious entity deciding, and therefore no A exists.

So, yes, you have good reason to believe "weird" is spelled a certain way. But it is the same good reason the lexicographer believes "weird" is spelled a certain way. Lexicographers are not an authority, they are simply recording what you and I practice!

I agree. But that is not what Nerdfiles said.

@nerdfiles,

Where did I say what you think I said? You've yet to address that.

I said nothing about dictionaries deciding anything. (That doesn't even makes sense because dictionaries do not have volitional or cognitive properties (Dictionaries are not people).)

"The dictionary says what the dictionary says" is equivalent to "The dictionary states what the dictionary states" is equivalent to "The dictionary is a statement of what the dictionary is a statement of".

The dictionary is a record of lexicographic mappings. The lexicographer is the map-maker. (Still surprised you have not got this analogy yet.)

If the map-maker (lexicographer) makes the map (dictionary), then the map-maker does not and cannot decide the directions of the road or the path of the rivers or the boundaries between states and nation-states (the lexicographer does not and cannot decide the spellings or the meanings or the grammar of a language).

The map-maker and the lexicographer have resources for determining the best approximation. The map-maker has tools like "symbol for road," "graphic for unit of road," "graphic for unit of river," "graphic for mountain," and so on. The lexicographer has resources such as the alphabet and the grammatical categories (which are representations of the categories found in linguistic practice). The lexicographer names the categories and maps them to the practices of the community.

This bit has nothing to do with saying "The dictionary states what it states". This latter claim is unilluminating. It is a tautology. It says nothing at all about anything. "Appealing to the dictionary" would only be appealing to "the dictionary, insofar as it states what it states."

"Appealing" to the dictionary would be nothing more than appealing to the approximations made by lexicographers of a linguistic community, which you might be a member of. But the statement is authoritative in that it is an approximation of spelling and meaning. It is not an appeal to the decision process of the lexicographer. The lexicographer does not decide the spellings of the words. The lexicographer decides which spellings are representative. Deciding what is representative is not to decide how the word should be spelt. It is a decision about how the word is (approximately) spelt with respect to a linguistic community.

This is the is-ought gap. The lexicographer (and her record (the dictionary)) does not make a statement of how one ought to spell a word. Her record is a statement is a statement of how the word is spelt. Whether you wish to say "You ought to spell a word or use a meaning this or that way" is fallacious because it transgresses the is-ought distinction, and it is not the intention of the dictionary writer. The dictionary writer merely states how something is. Like with science: Science does not tell us what we ought to do. Like so, if science tells us "A fetus has so-and-so nervous system development at time t" this does not tell us what we ought to do.

If I looked up this scientific finding in a biology text book, I could say "Appealing to a scientific textbook only establishes that the textbook says what the textbook says"; and this is exactly what I said about the dictionary.

[INDENT]"I AM SAYING THAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, AND APPEALING TO THE DICTIONARY WOULD ONLY ESTABLISH THAT THE DICITONARY SAYS WHAT IT SAYS"
[/INDENT]Nothing about the spelling in the dictionary commands or declares that it ought to be spelt in such-and-such a way. So, appealing to the dictionary would only be appealing to a record of some fact (linguistic practice facts).

Lexicographers are scientists: Scientists who discover facts about a linguistic community's linguistic practices. Appealing to them would be appealing to the facts. But the facts alone do not imply an authority about norms or evaluations. The lexicographer says "this is the best spelling" insofar as it is a good representative approximation that captures the linguistic behavior of the community. Indeed, the lexicographer makes a decision about that much. But this is not a decision about how the word ought to be spelt.

It's two different senses of the word "decision" and "best". When a scientist evaluates something, it is a scientific evaluation constrained by scientific methodology and principles. It does not step outside of this. Scientific norms are not global norms that we all must accept.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Nothing about the spelling in the dictionary commands or declares that it ought to be spelt in such-and-such a way. So, appealing to the dictionary would only be appealing to a record of some fact (linguistic practice facts).

Of course not. But the dictionary does report how words are spelled by fluent educated writers of the language. And, this is rightly taken by those who consult the dictionary to be the standard way the word in question is spelled. Otherwise, why would they consult the dictionary? So, for people who consult the dictionary, the dictionary is authoritative on how the word is spelled. And this is true for newspapers, books, magazines, and so on. And, if we want to prove that, for instance, the word "weird" is wrongly spelled as "wierd". the way to do it is to show how it is spelled in the dictionary. That is all I am claiming. What are you claiming?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Of course not. But the dictionary does report how words are spelled by fluent educated writers of the language. And, this is rightly taken by those who consult the dictionary to be the standard way the word in question is spelled. Otherwise, why would they consult the dictionary? So, for people who consult the dictionary, the dictionary is authoritative on how the word is spelled. And this is true for newspapers, books, magazines, and so on. And, if we want to prove that, for instance, the word "weird" is wrongly spelled as "wierd". the way to do it is to show how it is spelled in the dictionary. That is all I am claiming. What are you claiming?

The is-ought distinction gives us a distinction between decision.

A decision about the way the word is spelt is what the lexicographer does. By extension, the dictionary is a culmination of decisions about the way the word is spelt.

A decision about the way the word ought to be spelt is what newspapers, fluent educated speakers, writers, etc do.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

The is-ought distinction gives us a distinction between decision.

A decision about the way the word is spelt is what the lexicographer does. By extension, the dictionary is a culmination of decisions about the way the word is spelt.

A decision about the way the word ought to be spelt is what newspapers, fluent educated speakers, writers, etc do.

A decision about the way the word ought to be spelt is what newspapers, fluent educated speakers, writers, etc do

That is false. They don't make decisions on how words ought to be spelled. They just spell words, as part of their business. And how they spell words are the raw material from which lexicographers draw their data on how the word (in question) is spelled by people who are educated and fluent writers of the language. (And, of course, the word, "spelled" is not spelled "spelt")

A decision about the way the word is spelt is what the lexicographer does. By extension, the dictionary is a culmination of decisions about the way the word is spelt.

That is true, save for the addition that the decision is based on data from how fluent and educated writers spell the word.

It is the those who consult dictionaries, and use it to decide on what the correct spelling of a word it, who decide that the word ought to be spelled as the dictionary says it is spelled. They are the ones who use the dictionary as an authority.

@nerdfiles,

That's circular. The logical conclusion of what you just said is that no one decides on how a word ought to be spelt.

For one, dictionaries do not decide how neologisms ought to be spelt. Writers, authors, newspapers, etc would go to a dictionary and see nothing. The New York Times wouldn't call up a lexicographer at 2AM before a newspaper prints to ask, "Hey, could you hurry up with your next edition of Webster's? We need a spelling on this word ASAP."

So what you've said is patently false if not wholly incoherent.

For instance, "...who decide that the word ought to be spelled as the dictionary says it is spelled. They are the ones who use the dictionary as an authority."

This "ought" has absolutely no business being there. It isn't doing anything for that sentence.

---------- Post added at 10:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

[quote](And, of course, the word, "spelled" is not spelled "spelt")[/quote]Oh, and Jesus Christ. Pick up an Oxford dictionary. You're in no position to start playing grammar nazi when all of your arguments are incoherent or false at best.

I mean, seriously.

The lexicographer tells me and all my philosophical comrades how "intensionality" and "logicality" and "tractatus" are to be spelt?

They don't even appear in many dictionaries. We the philosophers judge how jargon is to be spelt, and those terms become common after extended and popular use.

Do you think the dictionary had "Nanoarchitectonics" before 1900? Why on earth would the lexicographer even know what this word means if a scientists hadn't told her?

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

They just spell words"--I suppose the spellings just fall out from Plato's Heaven and our spirits absorb them into our minds with their Platonic Linguistics Grabblers.

"The just spell words"; even if you're right, and this is true, this explains absolutely nothing.

And "They just spell words, as part of their business. And how they spell words are the raw material" is either vacuous, mysterious or simply consistent with what I said.

What the heck is "raw material" supposed to refer to? "How they spell" = "Raw material"; so...how do they spell? How do they come to their spellings? Either from they dictionary or"they just spell." Again, the dictionary is a statement of what their spellings are. Sure, they check the dictionary every now in then, but certainly one can contest the spelling found in the dictionary.

What about when you see a misspelling in the dictionary? What if it's a typo? Do you simply say, "Welp, that's how it's spelt." Let's deify the dictionary!

What about when a lexicographer is the author of a newspaper article? What if that lexicographer did decide on how the word ought to be spelt? Did that lexicographer consult with himself on how it ought to be spelt? Would she go to her last published dictionary?

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

That's circular. The logical conclusion of what you just said is that no one decides on how a word ought to be spelt.

For one, dictionaries do not decide how neologisms ought to be spelt. Writers, authors, newspapers, etc would go to a dictionary and see nothing. The New York Times wouldn't call up a lexicographer at 2AM before a newspaper prints to ask, "Hey, could you hurry up with your next edition of Webster's? We need a spelling on this word ASAP."

So what you've said is patently false if not wholly incoherent.

For instance, "...who decide that the word ought to be spelled as the dictionary says it is spelled. They are the ones who use the dictionary as an authority."

This "ought" has absolutely no business being there. It isn't doing anything for that sentence.

---------- Post added at 10:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

Oh, and Jesus Christ. Pick up an Oxford dictionary. You're in no position to start playing grammar nazi when all of your arguments are incoherent or false at best.

I mean, seriously.

The lexicographer tells me and all my philosophical comrades how "intensionality" and "logicality" and "tractatus" are to be spelt?

They don't even appear in many dictionaries. We the philosophers judge how jargon is to be spelt, and those terms become common after extended and popular use.

Do you think the dictionary had "Nanoarchitectonics" before 1900? Why on earth would the lexicographer even know what this word means if a scientists hadn't told her?

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

They just spell words"--I suppose the spellings just fall out from Plato's Heaven and our spirits absorb them into our minds with their Platonic Linguistics Grabblers.

"The just spell words"; even if you're right, and this is true, this explains absolutely nothing.

And "They just spell words, as part of their business. And how they spell words are the raw material" is either vacuous, mysterious or simply consistent with what I said.

What the heck is "raw material" supposed to refer to? "How they spell" = "Raw material"; so...how do they spell? How do they come to their spellings? Either from they dictionary or"they just spell." Again, the dictionary is a statement of what their spellings are. Sure, they check the dictionary every now in then, but certainly one can contest the spelling found in the dictionary.

What about when you see a misspelling in the dictionary? What if it's a typo? Do you simply say, "Welp, that's how it's spelt." Let's deify the dictionary!

What about when a lexicographer is the author of a newspaper article? What if that lexicographer did decide on how the word ought to be spelt? Did that lexicographer consult with himself on how it ought to be spelt? Would she go to her last published dictionary?

Well obviously, if those terms do not appear in the dictionary, then it doesn't tell you how they are spelled. (But it does tell you how "spelled" is spelled. Don't you believe them?) And why would a dictionary have as an entry, the title of a book, anyway? Or a technical term, unless it was a well-known technical term. Technical terms are usually found in technical dictionaries.
Misspelling in dictionaries are generally typos. They do not reflect ignorance of spellings. And why would you context the spelling authorized by the dictionary? On what grounds would you do such a thing?

I don't think you know very much about dictionaries.

Anyway, this topic is a derail from skepticism and belief.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Well obviously, if those terms do not appear in the dictionary, then it doesn't tell you how they are spelled. *

You're not suggesting to me that it's so obvious to you. I wasn't giving you those criticisms and thought-experiments to highlight common knowledge. I went through all that rigmarole to indicate to you that your argument is insufficient, non-explanatory, and false.

Quote:

(But it does tell you how "spelled" is spelled. Don't you believe them?) *

Cut it out. Check Oxford, American Heritage and Random House. Words have various spellings. The dictionaries give us spellings. It would do us good to stop using how. Dictionaries state spellings. They don't tell except in a figurative sense. When my mother tells me "Do the laundry" she is not making a statement. A dictionary is a collection of statements. You can tell someone how to ride a bike but "telling how" in this sense is different from the a statement.

Quote:

And why would a dictionary have as an entry, the title of a book, anyway? *

"Tractatus" is the Latin for "treatise"; either way, you completely missed the point if that's all you have to say about those examples. You're being trivial.

Quote:

Or a technical term, unless it was a well-known technical term. Technical terms are usually found in technical dictionaries. *

What you've said here is insubstantial and trivial. Many general dictionaries are loaded with jargon. See: "nanotechnology", etc

Quote:

Misspelling in dictionaries are generally typos. They do not reflect ignorance of spellings. And why would you context the spelling authorized by the dictionary? On what grounds would you do such a thing? *

Here's where citing the dictionary becomes secondary. When I say "context is not a verb" I refer to the fact that I cannot understand what you are saying. I don't need to tell you that it is not a verb according to some dictionary. All I need to tell you is that it makes no sense and that I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Telling you it is not in the dictionary would not change the fact that it makes no sense. I determine that it makes no sense. I don't need a dictionary to tell me that it does not.

Quote:

I don't think you know very much about dictionaries.

I starred everything you said which does not in the least contradict what I've said. If anything, what you've said is consistent with what I've said.

The first star indicates a statement which simply restates my point.
The second is trivial, misleading and ignorant.
The third is ignorant.
The fourth: Yes, well-known terms generally make it into dictionaries. That's perhaps the main point of lexicography. Either way, trivial and ignorant.
The fifth: It was a thought-experiment. You missed the point. I don't need you to inform me of how things actually go "generally" because the point of the thought-experiment is to suppose a particular case where a typo does appear. The point was to underscore the response of the person reading the dictionary, not to ask you how misspellings crop up. I wasn't supposing they reflect ignorance of spelling; the point was that to judge that it is a misspelling at all, you likely will not consult another dictionary. You won't say "Welp, that's how it's spelt." This is to highlight the non-authoritative nature of dictionaries. Even if it is a typo, and you determine this you will still be motivated to say "that is a misspelling." It's possible that instead of concluding that it is a typo, you will conclude that the dictionary has a misspelling. You won't conclude that the dictionary has mapped a misspelling to a linguistic community: Why would you do this? If the linguistic community does spell it that way, then it won't be a "misspelling." It will be the proper spelling, the correct one. Thus, the lexicographer does not authoritatively say how a word ought to be spelt.

Further, you haven't enlightened us with any facts about dictionary production that we have not already stated before your comments. And if anything, the principles and premises of your arguments suggest that you have an incoherent understanding of how lexicographers work, or you're simply getting caught up in your own fowl logic.

I don't see what you justification is for claiming that I don't know much about dictionaries. But what I do see is that you provided no philosophical argument in your last post. It was either ignorant pseudo-correction or snide remark. If you're not going to do philosophy, then why are you continuing? You seem to be preoccupied with stating factual matters (even though most of the things you state are factually inaccurate or simply false).

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------

Zetherin wrote:

You've illustrated (and yes, you did too, Dichanthelium - thanks for your insights) just how subjective the matter really is [in finding the necessary and sufficient conditions for the "belief" we're speaking]. We must "come to terms" with each character in each thought experiment, lest we hit our heads against semantic rambling. My head is a bloody pulp, by the way.

Well, I think "P is thinkable" is a good starting point as a necessary condition. I think "thinkability" implies my necessary condition of normative belief formation, that of "acquiring beliefs in the appropriate causal or generally accepted means".

Basically, if someone comes to belief that "2+2=5" we might say, "Look, that is not thinkable--think about it!" But we might also try to determine how someone might even come to utter such a belief. If we determine that the person was coerced into uttering such a thing, we can legitimately look at the connection between belief and utterance.

Merely uttering a string of words does not imply that one belief it. In a way, then, we might suggest that one is merely uttering a string of words when he or she utters I believe that 2+2=5. For instance, it might be a child who hasn't learned maths or taken any basic arithmetic. Or perhaps the person is psychotic or with some mental disorder. (We will likely deny a certain class of beliefs to people who are ostensibly mentally unstable. Picture when your friends are angry, and they shout, "I believe you're going to fail your exam!" But surely this friend may simply be irrational, or simply venting frustration." Certain states suggest that the belief is not genuine or authentic--before we get into a question of whether it is justified. If you friend pleads that you might die if you go mountain climbing, we might deny such a belief on grounds of being hyperbolic.)

We might also look at the behavior of an individual. If someone, say an atheist, says "I believe that God exists" and we do not know this person is an atheist, we can look at his or her behavior. If that belief does not fit in with the rest of her behavior (including linguistic behavior) we might deny that the belief is authentic.

So perhaps my normative constraint on belief formation somewhat extends beyond the "thinkability" constraint (or necessary condition), though they are consistent with one another--they do overlap or perhaps are consequences of one another.

But to the other point, another "subjective chaos" or "subjective indeterminacy". Look, our justification shapes the propositions we assent to, along with the formation of our beliefs. Whether or not we accept the constraint of normative belief formation, we must assume that two people in roughly the same position to acquire the belief, given a similar background, will more or less have the same proposition.

But this grounds my argument which suggests that too disparate of position and dissimilar the backdrop or background of the believers in question will make the proposition they are believing different.

Basically, our backgrounds will shape the spectacles with which we view the world, shape the propositions we entertain.

"It is raining" may seem radically different to a person from Florida to a person from California since they associate different features with "rain."

This all seems innocuous and unilluminating, I'm sure.

Again, the justification shapes the proposition. And what factors into the justification? What is the set of properties which constitute the justification? How much detail constitutes ones justification? How much detail is one able to perceive, or how much is perceived? These ground the justification which shapes the proposition to be justified, the proposition believed.

Quote:

So, I ask now after 17 pages: How on earth can we continue this after knowing each thought experiment conjured begs the question for "What did X mean by Y"? How can we come to a general conclusion about any "belief" when meaning applied to words varies so greatly?

I hope I addressed this above.

Quote:

I'm feeling almost fooled by the entire thread. We've been playing with words here for days, playing with entities, that, you're right, aren't linguistic at all. I've been forcing my interpretations into language, and it's really only made me more confused.

Where do we go from here?

Yes, propositions are not linguistic. Perhaps it is difficult to get others to see this. Though they are expressed by linguistic entities (like sentences) and somatic procedures (like gestures, sign-language).

Philosophy Forum

Skepticism and Belief

Quick Links

My Account

able2know