User talk:Peter Muckley

Margolis
Can I bring to your attention some issues regarding the Joseph Marglis section in relativism?

"he maintains that a relativistic, many valued logic just might be the most apt for the artworld or history since"

Since when has "many-valued logic" been the same thing as relativism? I mean, he might have a perfectly good argument but it needs to be given. It is not standard or obvious.

"relationalism, the doctrine of true-for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different world, or the like. "

That is what everybody else calls relativism.

'For Margolis "true" means true.'

Then he is not a relativist in the sense used in the rest of the article. Which at least needs to be made explicit.

1Z 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain all this if you will help organize my main Margolis page. Quid Pro Quo

Peter Muckley

1Z Did as I requested. I thank him kindly for that. Will expand on Relativism, Margolis style as promised.

Peter Muckley

''The main point of blocking the idea of relational relativism --"true in l" or "true for k"-- is that this form of relativism is so easy to defeat by crying out "self-contradiction" immediately it appears.

It is "relational" because it relates truth to some specific person or world. Margolis offsets this childish tactic by: 1) pointing out that the self-contradiction argument only applies to uninterpreted formulas i.e. "x is big" according to Joe, "x is small" according to Jim, therefore "x is both big and small", which is self-contradictory; 2) keeping the alethic use of "true" as meaning true, period; 3) retiring the application of "true" from the arena of truth value assignments, in certain contexts i.e. the arts or history; 4) applying a many valued logic by a system of grading to support relativistic claims. Here, while "true" means true, the value "true" does not obtain in relativistic contexts which are contexts involving meaningful sentences not uninterpreted formulas. Thus, we retain "false", but do not apply "true" to such statements as "Nixon knew about Watergate beforehand" and "Nixon did not know about Watergate beforehand". The interpretative is always open, in real life, to relativism, the world is like that. The most we can say, with lots of supporting evidence, is that "that tricky Dick knew about Watergate" is a pretty damn good proposition.

After all, in real life, not logic-chopping fantasy, something may indeed appear big to Joe and small to Jim, and appearance vs reality is a false dichotomy. It is only if this "x" had some kind of REAL ESSENCE", as Aristotle assumed, that we could say "x" is really big or small''.


 * Thankyou for these comments. However, they do not answer the principle question: why Margolis considers polyvalence to be relativism. Instead, you/he assumes that polyvalence and the relational approach are both forms of relativisim, and argue for the superiotry of the latter.


 * 1) self-contradiction ensues when relativism is asserted with a realist "alethic" ntion of truth as applying to everybody. since Margolis thinks that is the correct interpertation of truth (2), he has to accept that relativism is contradictory.


 * 4) it has been asserted, not argued, that polyvalence is relativism. The distinction between "meaningful sentences" and "uninterpreted formulas" is absurd. "two plus two is four" is a meaningful sentence, and truth applies to it. A better distinction would be context that involve individual judgements and reactions, and those that do not.


 * 'do not apply "true" to such statements as "Nixon knew about Watergate beforehand"'


 * This confuses truth with justificational certainty. We may not be able to be certain about it, but there is a fact of the matter either way. Some people believe in extraterrestial and others don't. some of them have to be right--to be making true statements -- although no-one has strong justification for their views. Truth is different from justification because it can be obtained by lucky guessing.

1Z 13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole line of argument seems to betray that your "absolute presuppositions" (as Collingwood would say) have been stepped upon. The cry that relativism is "self-contradictory" has obviously been made much too often. a false theory only has to be rebutted once.

2 + 2 = 4. This is not meaningful in any world but one which accepts the convention. zig + zig = zag. would do quite as well. according to Webster's, "2" and "4" did not exist pre-200 B.C. Did 2 + 2 = 4 in 500 B.C.? 2 + 2 = 4 is completely uninterpreted. 2 rabbits plus two rabbits can very well equal 15 or 20 rabbits pretty soon. History, old chap, gets into everything. If you are indeed so worried about Margolis' relativism, why not read his The Truth About Relativism? It is not that difficult to obtain and not even that expensive (it was issued in paperback). Read it and then dispute, don't you think? This is better than simply harping on about his violation of a sacred cow (24 April).


 * a false theory only has to be rebutted once.


 * If only! People who have Absolutely Presupposed that there is no such thing as truth are obviously not going to think that there is such a thing as a once-and-for-all "rebuttal".


 * 2 + 2 = 4. This is not meaningful in any world but one which accepts the convention. 1Z 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like ours.


 * zig + zig = zag. would do quite as well.


 * When interpreted (or taken as defining its own interpretation).So what? The point here is that the formulae usually held up as examples of objective truth areinterpreted. So you cannot hold to widespread relativism on the basis of widespread lack of interpretation.


 * did 2 + 2 = 4 in 500 B.C.?


 * Yes. Greek mathematics was well advanced at the time. You are trying to obscure the difference between the intelligibiity of a symbol-string and the truth of what it stands for (under an interpretation). But "electrons are fermions" did not start being true some time in the 20th century, because electrons were never anything else.


 * 2 + 2 = 4 is completely uninterpreted.


 * no, we know what it means.


 * This is better than simply harping on about his violation of a sacred cow (24 April).


 * if one authority uses the terminology in an idiosyncratic way, the general reader needs to be warned. 1Z 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * why not read his The Truth About Relativism?


 * Are your wikipedia entries inaccurate?1Z 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Honesty, accuracy, honesty --à la Acton-- are my watchwords. Why should they be inaccurate? I mistake nothing, though you and I do not seem to inhabit the same world. Your faith in science is truly lovely. As is your reliance upon some kind of nominalism, as I suppose it must be.

Did you take Margolis' birthdate away once? If so, why? you really should become a "general reader" of The Truth about Relativism. Would keep your blood-pressure under control. If the "accuracy" thing is about the spelling of "Relativism" --dashed off in a rapid moment and left to dry-- what about your typos, above, ie "ntion"??? 25th April ______

I imagined this was an informal forum here. Everything I have submitted to Wikipedia is accurate, to the best of my knowledge. My comments on Robust Relativism will be polished up later. My comments on Margolis are as accurate as I can make them. I have no wish to be the butt of eristics. The person constantly commenting obviously only wants to win some kind of battle which I am not interested in pursuing. I hope there is an end to this. there are more pressing problems in our troubled world to consider than whether I can answer the question which Jesus could not.

Peter Muckley 25th April.