Month: June 2010

The Essence of Progressivism

From George F. Will, The Limits of the Welfare State:

Lack of "a limiting principle" is the essence of progressivism, according to William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, in his new book "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State." The Founders, he writes, believed that free government's purpose, and the threats to it, is found in nature. The threats are desires for untrammeled power, desires which, Madison said, are "sown in the nature of man." Government's limited purpose is to protect the exercise of natural rights that pre-exist government, rights that human reason can ascertain in unchanging principles of conduct and that are essential to the pursuit of happiness.

An excellent article.  Read it all.

Deflationism: Ramsey and Redundancy

I am using 'deflationism' as an umbrella term subsuming several different deflationary theories of truth, among them Ramsey's redundancy theory, Quine's disquotationalism, Horwich's minimalist theory, and others. Deflationary theories contrast with what might be called 'robust' or substantive' theories of truth. It is not easy to focus the issue that divides these two types of theory. One way to get a feel for the issue is by considering the traditional-sounding question, What is the nature of truth? This 'Platonic' question — compare What is the nature of knowledge? (Theaetetus); What is the nature of justice? (Republic) — presupposes that truth has a nature, a nature that can be analyzed or otherwise explicated in terms of correspondence, or coherence, or 'what conduces to human flourishing,' or what would be accepted at the Peircean limit of inquiry, or something else. 

The deflationist questions the presupposition. He suspects that truth has no nature. He suspects that there is no one property that all truths have, a property the having of which constitutes them as truths. His project is to try to account for our truth-talk in ways that do not commit us to truth's having a nature, or to truth's being a genuine property. Of course, we English speakers have and use the word 'true.'  But the mere fact that we have and use the predicate 'true' does not suffice to show that there is a property corresponding to the predicate. (Exercise for the reader: find predicates to which no properties correspond.)

So if we can analyze our various uses of 'true' in ways that do not commit us to a property of truth, then we will have succeeded in deflating the topic of truth and showing it to be metaphysically insubstantial or 'lightweight.' The most radical approach would be one that tries to dispense with the predicate 'true' by showing that everything we say with its help can be said without its help (and without the help of any obvious synonym such as 'correct.') The idea here is not merely that truth is not a genuine property, but that 'true' is not even a genuine predicate.

Consider two assertions. I first assert that snow is white, and then I assert that it is true that snow is white. The two assertions have the same content. They convey the same meaning to the audience. This suggests that the sentential operator  'It is true that ___' adds nothing to the content of what is asserted. And the same goes for the predicate '___ is true.' Whether we think of 'true' as an operator or as a predicate, it seems redundant, or logically superfluous. In "Facts and Propositions" (1927), Frank Ramsey sketches a redundancy or logical superfluity theory of truth. This may be the first such theory in the Anglosphere. (Is there an historian in the house?)

For Ramsey, "there really is no separate problem of truth but merely a linguistic muddle." Ramsey tells us that ". . . 'It is true that Caesar was murdered' means no more than that Caesar was murdered, and 'It is false that Caesar was murdered' means that Caesar was not murdered." (F. P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, Cambridge UP, 1990, ed. D. H. Mellor, p. 38) But what about a case in which a proposition is not explicitly given, but is merely described, as in 'He is always right'? In this example, 'right' has the sense of 'true.' 'He is always' right means that whatever he asserts is true. As a means of getting rid of 'true' in this sort of case, Ramsey suggests:

1. For all p, if he asserts p, then p is true.

But since "the propositional function p is true is the same as p, as e.g., its value 'Caesar was murdered is true' is the same as 'Caesar was murdered,'" Ramsey thinks he can move from (1) to

2. For all p, if he asserts p, then p.

If the move to (2) is kosher, then 'true' will have been eliminated. Unfortunately, (2) is unintelligible. To see this, try to apply Universal Instantiation to (2). If the variable 'p' ranges over sentences, we get

3. If he asserts 'Snow is white,' then 'Snow is white.'

This is nonsense, because "'Snow is white'" in both occurrences is a name, whence it follows that the consequent of the conditional is not a proposition, as it must be if the conditional is to be well-formed. If, on the other hand, the variable 'p' is taken to range over propositions, then we get the same result:

4. If he asserts the proposition that snow is white, then the proposition that snow is white

which is also nonsense. Unless I am missing something, it looks as if Ramsey's redundancy theory cannot succeed in eliminating 'true.' It looks as if 'true' is an indispensable predicate, and thus a genuine predicate. This does not, however, show that truth is a genuine property.   It merely shows that we cannot get rid of 'true.'

Geach on Assertion

The main point of Peter Geach's paper, "Assertion" (Logic Matters, Basil Blackwell, 1972, pp. 254-269) is what he calls the Frege point: A thought may have just the same content whether you assent to its truth or not; a proposition may occur in discourse now asserted, now unasserted; and yet be recognizably the same proposition. This seems unassailably correct. One will fail to get the Frege point, however, if one confuses statements and propositions. An unstated statement is a contradiction in terms, but an unasserted proposition is not. The need for unasserted propositions can be seen from the fact that many of our compound assertions (a compound assertion being one whose content is propositionally compound) have components that are unasserted.

To assert a conditional, for example, is not to assert its antecedent or its consequent. If I assert that if Tom is drunk, then he is unfit to drive, I do not thereby assert that he is drunk, nor do I assert that he is unfit to drive.  I assert a compound proposition the components of which I do not assert.  The same goes for disjunctive propositions. To assert a disjunction is not to assert its disjuncts. Neither propositional component of Either Tom is sober or he is unfit to drive is asserted by one who merely asserts the compound disjunctive proposition.

What bearing does this have on recent discussions?  I am not sure I understand William of Woking's position, but he seems to be denying something that Geach plausibly maintains, namely, that "there is no expression in ordinary language that regularly conveys assertoric force." (261)  Suppose I want to assert that Tom is drunk.  Then I would use the indicative sentence 'Tom is drunk.'  But there is nothing intrinsically assertoric about that sentence.  If there were, then prefixing 'if' to it would not remove its assertoric force as it does.    As I have already explained, an assertive utterance of 'If Tom is drunk, then he is unfit to drive'  does not amount to an assertive utterance of 'Tom is drunk.'  'If' cancels the assertoric force.  And yet the same proposition occurs in both assertions, the assertion that Tom is drunk and the assertion that if Tom is drunk, then he is unfit to drive.  I conclude that there is nothing intrinsically assertoric about indicative sentences.  If so, there is no semantic component of an indicative sentence that can be called the assertoric component.

'If' prefixed to an indicative sentence does not alter its content: it neither augments it nor diminishes it.  But it does subtract assertoric force.  Given that the meaning of an indicative sentence is its content, and the semantics has to do with meaning, then there is no semantic assertoric component of an indicative sentence or of the proposition it expresses.  Assertion and assertoric force do not belong in semantics; they belong in pragmatics.  Or so it seems to me.

Sentence, Linguistic Meaning, Proposition

I maintain that we must distinguish among declarative sentences, their linguistic meanings, and the propositions expressed by tokenings of declarative sentences by speakers in definite contexts. Furthermore, I maintain that propositions, not linguistic meanings, are the vehicles of the truth-values. Here are four declarative sentences in four different languages, English, German, Turkish, and Latin:  I love you; Ich liebe dich; Seni seviyorum; Te amo. 

Clearly, each of these sentences can be used to express many different thoughts or propositions. If Jack says 'I love you' to Jill, the proposition expressed is different from the proposition expressed if Bill says 'I love you' to Hill. Since one and the same sentence type can be used to express different propositions, it follows that sentence types are distinct from propositions.

We must also distinguish between a sentence type and its linguistic meaning, the meaning it has in virtue of the conventions of the language to which the sentence type belongs. The four sentences displayed above have the same meaning. Since one and the same meaning is possessed by these four different sentence types, it follows that linguistic meanings are distinct from sentence types. It follows from the two points just made that linguistic meanings are distinct from propositions. One proof of this is that one can have a complete understanding of the linguistic meaning of a sentence without knowing any proposition that the sentence has ever expressed. Let me explain.

Suppose a Spanish speaker learning English learns that 'Mary loves Carl' means the same as 'Mary ama a Carl.' The Spanish speaker then fully understands the linguistic meaning of 'Mary loves Carl' but without needing to know any proposition, any truth or falsehood, that the English sentence has ever expressed. (See Castaneda, Thinking and Doing, p. 35) Therefore, the linguistic meaning of a declarative sentence is distinct from the proposition expressed by the sentence on some occasion of the sentence's use. Some, blinded by the nominalist fear of reification, cannot admit this obvious distinction between linguistic meaning and proposition. One nominalist writes, "In summary, the meaning of a sentence is what it says, what it says is true or false, ergo the meaning of a sentence is a 'truth bearer'." The argument is this:

1. The meaning of a sentence is what it says.

2. What a sentence says is either true or false. Therefore,

3. The meaning of a sentence is either true or false.

The argument equivocates on 'what it says.' If premise (2) is true, then what a declarative sentence says is identical to the proposition it expresses. It is important to realize that I am not assuming any particular theory of propositions. Thus I am not assuming that they are Platonic entities. I am simply insisting that we need to distinguish between the linguistic meaning of a sentence (the meaning it has in virtue of the conventions of the language to which it belongs) and the proposition a sentence expresses when the sentence is uttered or otherwise tokened by a person in a definite situation. But in premise (1), the linguistic meaning of a sentence is identified with what it says. Thus 'what it says' is being used in two different ways, which fact destroys the validity of the argument. If a proponent of the argument says I am begging the question against him, I reply that he is failing to admit an obvious distinction. The distinction is not original with me. It ought to be visible to anyone. If an a priori commitment to nominalism blinds one to so obvious a distinction, then so much the worse for an a priori commitment to nominalism.

Soul Food

People are generally aware of the importance of good nutrition, physical exercise and all things health-related. They understand that what they put into their bodies affects their physical health. Underappreciated is a truth just as, if not more important: that what one puts into one's mind affects one's mental and spiritual health. The soul has its foods and its poisons just as the body does. This simple truth, known for centuries, goes unheeded while liberals fall all over each other climbing aboard the various environmental bandwagons.

Why are those so concerned with physical toxins so tolerant of cultural toxins? This is another example of what I call misplaced moral enthusiasm. You worry about global warming when you give no thought to the soul, its foods, and its poisons? You liberals are a strange breed of cat, crouching behind the First Amendment, quick to defend every form of cultural pollution under the rubric 'free speech.'   But honest dissent you label as 'hate speech' and you shout down those who disagree with you.

The Misrepresentations of Arizona SB 1070 Continue

People from whom one would expect intellectual honesty continue to misrepresent SB 1070.  Yet another example surfaced in this morning's Arizona Republic in a letter to the editor from Clara M. Lovett, president emerita of Northern Arizona University.  She writes:

A statute that allows police to stop people on the basis of "reasonable suspicion" that they are undocumented aliens turns on its head one of the most sacred principles of American law. Anyone stopped and questioned by police is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

This is an egregious misrepresentation.  The statute does not allow police to stop people on the basis of reasonable suspicion that they are illegal aliens.  The 1070 statute as amended by HB 2162 disallows this.  The following are the conditions under which an immigration inquiry may proceed.  Each must be satisfied.  See here for links and quotations.

1.  There must be a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

2. The stop, detention, or arrest must be made in the enforcement of a law other than 1070.

3.  There must be reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

4.  The immigration inquiry must be practicable.

5.  The immigration inquiry must not hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Lovett ignores  (1), (2), (4), and (5).  Lovett joints Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and the others who presume to criticize what they haven't read.  And this woman is a former NAU president?