RoR: Forum

Re #2, what would the proposition be referring to if its constituent concepts are mistaken or not clear?

I think it makes sense that one can be half-right, or on the track, in formulating a proposition even if the concepts have not yet been nailed down...that there may be a lot of reciprocal clarifying, patchy and gradual, that goes on when investigating new territory. It can't be that unless you've got it all-correct all-at-once, all-of-it is all-wrong. Still, how can a proposition be "true" 100% if the referents are not fully clear or correct?

Post 1

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 5:55am

Evelyn,

... how can a proposition be "true" 100% if the referents are not fully clear or correct?

Well, I was thinking about times when folks have been accidentally correct. This happens a lot in math. If you use the wrong formula to guess the next number in a series, you may be right the first time, but not subsequently. An example might look like this:

1, 2, 4, ...

Now, if the formula is:

n = 2(n-1)

... then the next number is 8. Wait, this example won't work. Let me try again:

1, 3, 5, ...

Okay, much better. Now, you may already be thinking that the formula is:

n = (n-1) + 2

... and so you ascertain that the next number is 7, and you are correct as far as that goes. But alas, you have made a mistake. You see, unbeknownst to you, the actual formula is:

n = [prime number > n-1]

... so, while the next number is 7 (as you mistakenly ascertained), the following number is 11 and not 9 (as you would have predicted using your incorrect formula).

Does this example "work" for you, Evelyn? Do you see what I mean when I say you can be wrongly (accidentally) right, or right, but for the wrong reason?

Ed

Post 2

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 1:30pm

Ed, yes, I believe that people can be accidentally right about something. But how is "7" a proposition?

I believe that implicit, inchoate, incomplete, half-baked, or largely incorrect understandings of things can nevertheless result in persons taking actions that are correct with respect to their goals, for example. (Perhaps I move out of a city because I sense that it is going downhill, but my explicit understanding of what is going wrong with it is erroneous.)

But I thought we were talking about propositions and whether they can be true even when one or more of the constituent concepts is half-baked or false. By your own stipulation, the guy who came up with 7 has the wrong idea of what's going on in the mathematical operation. (Albeit it seems that all the constituent concepts are clear enough. We know what numerals refer to, algebraic and operative symbols refer to, etc.)

Post 3

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 1:44pm

I should amend what I just submitted (since I can't edit the post, since it's sitting in a moderation queue, since several years ago I was deprived without cause of full posting privileges). "The next item in the series is 7" would be a proposition and a true one. But it's not a proposition about how the series is formed; it doesn't have the universality that makes for scientific knowledge. Still, strictly speaking, yes, one can utter true propositions without knowing why they are true, but then be unable to go further because one lacks any wider knowledge about the context. Again, though, in this case all the constituent concepts are unambiguous.

Post 4

Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 6:53am

Evelyn,

Instead of using math sequences as analogies, let's explore our thoughts using one of the examples in the book: The Logical Leap.

Jean Buridan thought that the formula for "momentum" was this:

["momentum"] = [propulsion from spooky, intrinsic force called "impetus" -- which dissipates over time]

This incorrect understanding, which accidentally worked in order to accurately describe most motion in Buridan's time, prevented Buridan from coming up with the 3 Laws of Motion that Isaac Newton did.

Isaac Newton must have thought that the formula for "momentum" was this:

[momentum] = [mass] x [velocity]

... because such is reflected in his Laws of Motion. Now Newton may not have overtly claimed to totally reject Buridan's notion of "impetus; dissipating over time" -- but his work proves that he, in fact, did have an alternative notion which he put to use in formulating the laws.

Will you comment on this example?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/18, 3:25pm)

Post 5

Saturday, November 20, 2010 - 10:08pm

To correct myself, Buridan's concept of impetus involved propulsion from a spooky, "intrinsicized" force that doesn't just dissipate over time, but dissipates due to outside resistance or friction.

A great sentence explaining the difference between Buridan and Newton is this:

The impetus of a body was the cause of motion but its Newtonian equivalent, momentum is simply descriptive, no cause being required.

--http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Impetus

For Buridan, something inside a moving object propelled it and something outside the moving object (resistance, friction) "fights" the internalized force and eventually wins -- causing the object to come to rest.

For Newton, you don't need to mysticize motion via appeal to spooky, hidden forces.

A related intellectual hang-up occurred when Descartes mysticized all action 'at-a-distance'. Descartes postulated that bodies can't affect each other unless they are physically connected to each other -- leading subsequent mysticists to postulate that there must be some kind of invisible aether connecting objects which (gravitationally) attract each other.

Ed

Post 6

Monday, November 22, 2010 - 6:18pm