[hist-analytic] "He is a _post_-analytic"
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Sat Feb 7 13:41:30 EST 2009
-- he said, in French, using 'post-analytic' substantively.
Are post-analytic philosophers said to be so with a straight face?
Does it mean ... -- er, what?
I once was so unamused by post-Griceans versus neo-Griceans that I coined
the term, 'paleo-Gricean', well, to extend the relevant polemic to, hey, Grice
In a message dated 2/7/2009 1:22:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mdoctorow at ca.rr.com writes in "Re: Mathematics and Lakatos's Research Programme
In mathematical probability-statistics, for example, whether you prefer to
divide or to subtract numbers will literally respectively separate you into
almost physically fighting schools (conditional probability versus [...]
Interesting, and I'll make it a shortie here!
I see your programme has not degenerated at all, and indeed, was reading
your amusing (in the good sense of 'amusing') discovery upon your son
discovering that your theories had been minimized.
When reading Malthus, I found it obtuse that he said that food grows
arithmetically while people grow geometrically. But I thought he was proved to be
_right_. It was an _empirical_ finding. (That's why a philosopher would defend
controlled birth -- in an attempt to arithmetize populations, as it were; for
I'm sure it's more difficult to geometrize food?).
In any case, I love probability theory. Know next to zero about it. Some has
to do with Jackson and Lewis (philosophers -- and one Mc) about
'conditional' or horseshoe operations (whether what Grice found as the divergence between
the horseshoe and the 'if' vernacular was a matter of something that people
who use 'if' conventionally implicate or conversationally implicate -- all
jargon, but I recall D. S. M. Edgington -- my tutora here -- was pleased to
follow my little tidbit on this).
But of course mathematical probability-statistics, I hope, can also be a
_formal_ (i.e. non empirical) science, as much as logic is. And I'm curious how
what I call
The Geometrical School (who like to 'divide')
The Arithmetical School (who like to 'substract')
(as I call _you_)
could avoid physical fight -- between the lightweights and the heavyweights,
shall I say -- not fair! --.
If it's all _formal_, i.e. non-empirical, it would be a matter of "Charming
by Convention" (I avoid Poincare's 'True by Convention' for this _extends_
truth in my opinion). I.e. a matter of _stipulative_ definitions that you
either follow or don't.
It's all pretty wicked, and I wish you good luck in showing the degeneracy
of the other paradigm!
Come to think of it, I've heard _hundreds_ saying that "Analytic Philosophy"
has degenerated beyond repair (and some will speak of 'post-analytic'). The
fact that this is hist-analytic saves us to lose too much face about it --
even when you can call me a reactionary irreverent conservative when I say I
don't think the paradigm has degenerated _so_.
Grice saved us, in a way, by saying that Philosophy has "Longitudinal Unity"
(never mind "latitudinal") so that what Socrates said is still valid ('plus
or minus one change of idiom or other', he added).
**************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499.
More information about the hist-analytic