"Best blog name ever" - Healthy Concerns
Hallq-- Have you taken a course in formal logic? That Chalmers paper is related to logic, specifically the logic of conditional statements. I agree there is nothing miraculous about it or anything, but logic is a pretty important field in my mind, especially the logic of conditionals.However, I'm biased, because I'm a philosopher. You may know what you are talking about and just vehemently disagree, but I am just saying that the Chalmers paper has a lot of pretense about conditionals, which could make it look worthless to the untrained observer.
I've taken a low-level course in formal logic (211 in Madison's course catalogue). In my original complaint, I hinted part of what was wrong with the Chalmers paper is lack of context, and what I learned in logic (and to an extent the 500-level epistemology course I took last semester) reinforces this for me: "if-then" statements aren't used exactly the same way in all contexts, so you need context to properly interpret what Ramsey said. Not surprisingly, the proper interpretation of what Ramsey said figured prominently in the rebuttal.
Post a Comment