Re: Solidity is degree of justification (was: Mirror neurons at autopsy)

On 23 Dec 2012, at 20:13, David Deutsch wrote:

> In [email protected], Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:53 PM, David Deutsch <david.deutsch@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> >> (Well, I say we know this -- but that explanation is not nearly  
> as solid as the ones above.
> >
> > This is justificationism.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to extend the meaning of the term  
> 'justificationism' in this way, to include claims that more is known  
> about one subject than another. (A.k.a. that we have better  
> explanations of one issue than another, a.k.a. that the best  
> theories about one issue are harder to vary than those in another,  
> a.k.a. more solid than those in another -- the metaphor being that  
> the shape of a solid is harder to vary than that of a liquid.)
>
> The reason it isn't a good idea is that it would classify a whole  
> class of true statements under the same heading as an important (and  
> unrelated) philosophical error, the one that is currently called  
> 'justificationism', namely that knowledge is that which can be  
> justified as true, or likely to be true, etc.
>
The Theaetetus theory of knowledge is "justified *and* true", not  
"justified as true", as this is impossible.
The nature of the "and" is let unknown, and with comp can be shown  
unknowable.

It gives an instance of the "classical theory" of knowledge, which is  
the theory that knowledge is well described by the modal logic S4,  
that is, with Kp = I know p,: Kp -> p, Kp -> KKp, K(p->q) -> (Kp ->  
Kq); with the modus ponens, the classical tautologies, and the  
necessitation rule: p => Kp.

Bruno




>
> In the quoted post, the two issues about which I made that  
> comparison were (1) whether there must be an inborn translation  
> system in animals capable of copying but not of creativity; and (2)  
> whether the 'mirror neurons' that have been discovered are part of  
> that system. I was saying that I think the best explanations  
> currently known of the respective issues imply that both answers are  
> yes, but that the explanations of the former issue are better than  
> those of the latter.
>
> -- David Deutsch
>
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]