tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post111171219891309124..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Dialogue with Carrier Part IVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48202659318609628562009-05-18T12:35:00.000-07:002009-05-18T12:35:00.000-07:00A modest proposal: Publish another book (or, perha...A modest proposal: Publish another book (or, perhaps, an updated edition of "Dangerous Idea"), responding in point-by-point fashion to the objections raised by your detractors (Carrier, etc.). <br /><br />If you ever do, consider me first in line to get it.<br /><br />Keep the faith!<br /><br />Kevin D. TaylorUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09387902219483858453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1112296962764318952005-03-31T12:22:00.000-07:002005-03-31T12:22:00.000-07:00I still think part of the problem (as I've written...I still think part of the problem (as I've written extensively on in years past {wry g}) is multiple meaning to 'rational'.<BR/><BR/>Now, speaking as someone who has himself criticized Victor's AfRs (and not always in agreement with what he does), including the text of CSLDI in various drafts, I can say this: I am quite sure that the notion of 'rational' he is using (by and large) in his AfRs, is not about an argument's validity or the correctness of its premises. It's about a quality or characteristic of an entity, specifically (though not restricted to) a human entity such as himself (and me and Richard and President Bush, etc.) Nor, strictly speaking, is it about the ability of an entity to produce something that could be called 'a conclusion validly grounded by legitimate form and factual premises.' Nor is it about a moral quality concerning that entity. Nor is it about whether the entity makes mistakes or not. Nor is it about the effects generated by this entity on other entities.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Consequently, I wouldn't bring up Bush as a counterfactual example to whatever Victor is claiming, unless I was making a specific claim about Bush himself, as himself--not about Bush's arguments, nor his use of his arguments, nor what he specifically intended (assuming I can even know and demonstrate that) to accomplish with his arguments.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I said "by and large" above, because it isn't impossible that Victor is occasionally slurring his use of "rational" over into other categories. If he is, and is doing this unannounced, and (most importantly) is treating those meanings as being equivalent when it seems convenient (and perhaps also not when not) -- then I would not consider this to be proper procedure.<BR/><BR/>So what meaning is Victor using for 'rational', in his arguments? Is he being consistent with his meaning? Is there perhaps a clearer meaning that he ought to be using instead? Is Richard perhaps giving a superior use of 'rational' (and if so, then how)? Into which category/ies does Richard's meaning of 'irrational argument' fit? Is Richard's Bush example congruent with the meaning Victor is using, without slurring over into false equivalence? (Even if Victor is equivocating for convenience between uses of 'rational', that wouldn't mean Richard is justified in following suit.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.com