home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!psych.toronto.edu!christo
- From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
- Subject: Re: John Searle
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.171807.2296@psych.toronto.edu>
- Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
- References: <BzEvzJ.1s1@cs.bham.ac.uk> <1992Dec18.000838.26936@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Dec21.003650.11227@cs.su.oz.au>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:18:07 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Dec21.003650.11227@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
- >In article <1992Dec18.000838.26936@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
- >>In article <BzEvzJ.1s1@cs.bham.ac.uk> ard@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller) writes:
- >>>In article <1992Dec15.173641.17791@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
- >>>So long as we can successfully communicate, then it doesn't matter
- >>>if your experience of the sky is similar to mine.
- >>
- >>It matters to anyone who doesn't adopt the rather crude pragmatism that
- >>you have just endorsed. Some of us are interested in truth, not just
- >>whether or not something "works"
- >
- >This entire discussion should be moved to sci.epistemology :)
- >I'm curious just what kind of theory of truth you have... I think
- >my position is probably pretty close to what you call Michael's
- >"crude pragmatism", I've never been able to find a coherent alternative.
- >
- You've messed up the attributions here. It's Antoni who's expressed what
- I called "crude pragmatism", and if you agree with it, then I suggest you
- read up on the fall of pragmatic theories of truth. The _Encyclopedia of
- Philosophy_ would probably be a reasonable place to begin, though it's a
- bit dated (1967).
-
- --
- Christopher D. Green christo@psych.toronto.edu
- Psychology Department cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
- University of Toronto
- Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
-