Apologies for the Interruption in this
series of posts, and More on Davidson’s famous paper, “A Nice Derangement of
Epitaphs”
In June (between June 2nd and June 25th
to be exact) this blog consisted of a series of posts on contextualism[1],
comparing my version and the version in Davidson’s famous paper (henceforth,
NDE). I had planned to continue blogging on this subject at once, but my friend
Mario DeCaro and I received word that Harvard University Press is prepared to
publish another collection of my papers, to be edited by DeCaro, under the
title, which is also the title of the paper whose appearance in the Journal of
the APA I announced in my last post (and which will be the first chapter in the
new collection), Naturalism, Realism, and Normativity. Moreover, HUP asked for a
file of the whole collection by yesterday, July 13th! Mario and I did
not quite meet that deadline, but we will have a file in the hands of the Press
this week (and we are both happy that the Press is eager to expedite the
publication). But making final emendations to the papers and formatting them to
meet the style of the Press was a full time job, and so blogging had to be
interrupted. But I will now continue this series of posts.
In those June posts, I said that I do not agree with
Davidson’s identification of truth-evaluable content and meaning,
but that NDE does contain a reasonable answer to a question [in my terminology
rather than Davidson’s] about “truth-evaluable content”,viz.,”What information
should a good semantic description of the truth-evaluable content of an
utterance on a particular occasion provide?”
Davidson's answer is that a good description of the
truth-evaluable content of the sentences that are uttered on a particular
occasion is nothing more or less than a “passing theory” which has the form a a
Tarskian truth-theory for those sentences (and the indefinitely large totality
of sentences that can be derived from them by the familiar compositional
devices.)
One might expect Davidson to add, “that describes
the implicit knowledge of the speaker concerning his or her own words, but
Davidson apparently rejects this. [I say, “apparently”, because NDE only
mentions explicit knowledge.] Instead, he says that the passing theory in
question must “model the speaker’s competence”. Davidson’s reasons are stated
briefly:
“To say that an explicit theory for interpreting a
speaker is a model of the interpreter’s linguistic competence is not to suggest
that the interpreter knows any such theory. It is possible, of course, that
most interpreters could be brought to acknowledge that they know some of the
axioms of a theory of truth; for example, that a conjunction is true if and
only if each of the conjuncts is true. And perhaps they also know theorems of
the form ‘An utterance of the sentence ‘‘There is life on Mars’’ is true if and
only if there is life on Mars at the time of the utterance.’ On the other hand,
no one now has explicit knowledge of a fully satisfactory theory for
interpreting the speakers of any natural language. In any case, claims about
what would constitute a satisfactory theory are not, as I said, claims about
the propositional knowledge of an interpreter, nor are they claims about the
details of the inner workings of some part of the brain. They are rather claims
about what must be said to give a satisfactory description of the competence of
the interpreter.” [NDE 256]
And my comment on this took the form of a question:
MY QUESTION ABOUT DAVIDSON:
The truth-evaluable content of a sentence on a particular occasion
is, then, given by its truth-condition, as specified by a passing theory that
does WHAT?
That is where my June
2015 series of posts left off. To resume, then, let me say why Davidson’s
reasons for denying that speaker’s have propositional knowledge of the
passing theory that gives the truth-evaluable content of the relevant sentences
in a particular conversation seem off the mark to me.
Davidson’s reasons, just quoted, are that (1) no speaker “now has explicit knowledge of a fully satisfactory theory for
interpreting the speakers of any natural language”; and (2) “, claims about
what would constitute a satisfactory theory are not, as I said, claims about
the propositional knowledge of an interpreter” (THUMP). Reason (1) ignores the
fact that a passing theory is not supposed to be a truth-theory for a whole
natural language, but only for a fragment large enough to contain the sentences
used in a particular conversation, and (2) just repeats the claim that “modeling” a
speaker’s competence is not describing his or her propositional knowledge (or
what goes on in his or her brain), but does not say WHAT it is instead.
I say these reasons are off the mark, because they
do not challenge the idea that the meanings of
the sentences in a particular conversation are the sort of thing that could be propositional knowledge. Maybe
no one has “a fully satisfactory” version of that knowledge today, and maybe
only a small number of speakers know the relevant Tarskian technicalities, but
neither of these facts shows that the passing theory on which a speaker and a
hearer converge couldn’t be someone’s explicit propositional knowledge.
What I
would say about all this depends on the “semantic externalism” (aka
“anti-individualist” view) that Kripke and I independently arrived at in the
late 1960s. On an externalist and anti-individualist view, knowing what the
word “gold” means doesn’t require one
to know a description of the metal of the kind a physicist would give today,
and it doesn’t even require that the physics or metallurgy be developed beyond
the point at which at least some people, people recognized by the linguistic
community as experts, can distinguish examples of gold from other metals and
alloys. A truth-theory (“passing
theory’) that describes what someone means by “gold” in a particular
conversation might say that “gold” refers to gold, but to say of an English
speaker that she knows what “gold refers to isn’t to say that she knows that theory; it is to say that she is able to
use the word properly, and that involves, not knowledge of a description that is synonymous with
“gold”, but social-know-how, including linkage to other members of the
community who are in turn linked to samples of the metal itself and who can
identify it. (Depending on the context, the appropriate passing theory might also says that "gold" refers to a color, or to a currency standard, etc.) The truth-evaluable content of sentences of a particular occasion can be formalized as a truth-theory; that is how we logicians formalize such things,
but the “know” in “know what a word refers to” does not normally refer to
propositional knowledge at all. It is because Davidson was unwilling to accept
anti-individualist semantics that the contextualism of NDE has such a strange
shape.
[1]
In one of those posts [June 17th] I wrote: The
thesis of contextualism is that in general the truth-evaluable content
of sentences depends both on what they mean (what a competent speaker knows
prior to encountering a particular context) and on the particular context, and
not on meaning alone.” In NDE this becomes the claim that
hearers’ theories of another speaker's first meanings (their “prior theories”)
have to be replaced by different theories (“passing theories”) in the course of
each conversation. The right passing theory for a particular
conversation will be one on which both speaker and hearer converge. In NDE, The truth conditions of sentences depend both on
their first meanings and on the way those first meanings have to be modified in
a particular conversation; they are not not, in general, the truth conditions
assigned by the prior theory. [Moreover, there is not, according to
NDE just one conventionally fixed prior theory shared by
all speakers of a language. (“As speaker and interpreter
talk, their prior theories become more alike”.) This
leads Davidson to the famous “I conclude that
there is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what
many philosophers and linguists have supposed.” (ibid. 265)
In my view, as early as “The Meaning of ‘Meaning,” the prior knowledge a competent speaker has of the semantics of a sentence includes such properties as the categories to which the words belong – .e.g, “gold is the name of a metal”, and the “stereotypes” associated with the words, but (contrary to Davidson) not any such thing as one particular context-independent truth condition of the sentence. Nevertheless, the Davidson of NDE and I are in agreement that on any particular occasion of use, the truth-evaluable content of a sentence on that occasion is not fixed by the prior knowledge/prior theory of the speaker qua speaker of the language, but depends on the occasion (the “context”). That is the sense in which we are both “contextualists”, despite our disagreements on other issues.
In my view, as early as “The Meaning of ‘Meaning,” the prior knowledge a competent speaker has of the semantics of a sentence includes such properties as the categories to which the words belong – .e.g, “gold is the name of a metal”, and the “stereotypes” associated with the words, but (contrary to Davidson) not any such thing as one particular context-independent truth condition of the sentence. Nevertheless, the Davidson of NDE and I are in agreement that on any particular occasion of use, the truth-evaluable content of a sentence on that occasion is not fixed by the prior knowledge/prior theory of the speaker qua speaker of the language, but depends on the occasion (the “context”). That is the sense in which we are both “contextualists”, despite our disagreements on other issues.
Thanks shring mr hilary putnam
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt is truly a great and helpful piece of information.
I am satisfied that you simply shared this useful information with us.
Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing. I know something information, to know you can click here
Property Valuers Darwin
Obat Wasir Ambe joss
ReplyDeleteObat Wasir Ambejoss Herbal Tanpa Efek Samping
Ambe joss
Solusi penyembuhan wasir tanpa operasi
Ramuan herbal AMBEJOSS 100% Ampuh Mengatasi Wasir
Mengobati wasir dalam satu bulan terbukti sembuh
AMBEJOSS obat herbal untuk wasir tanpa operasi
AMBEJOSS menyembuhkan wasir tanpa efek samping
Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi dengan AMBEJOSS
Pengobatan tradisional wasir tanpa efek samping
Cara cepat mengobati penyakit wasir berdarah
Cara mengatasi wasir atau ambeien dengan aman
Cara menyembuhkan wasir atau ambeien
Cara mengobati wasir atau ambeien
Obat Kutil Kelamin De Nature
Obat gang jie ghosiah De Nature
Obat Sipilis / Raja Singa De Nature
Obat Gonore De Nature
Obat Kencing Nanah De Nature
Obat Herpes De Nature
nice article
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRiandatama
Iki Creative
Review Terbaru
Cara Iki
Cara Login Wifi.id Gratis
Cara Memilih Nama Domain
Cara Mengganti Tema Android
Cara Mengatasi Game Android
Cara Menambah Kapasitas Ram Android
Cara Memberi Password di Folder
Cara Mengatasi Komputer Lemot
Cara Logout Wifi.id Terbaru
Cara Membuat Akun Voucher Gift Wifi.id
Cara Daftar Paypal Terbaru
Cara Mengatasi Blog Terkena Auto Visitor
Your articles are nice, thank you Mr. Hilary Putnam
ReplyDeletePerfect article. Thank you so much for the share. i don't have much idea about it anymore. but your article help to know more about it now.
ReplyDeleteMore travel reference : Kochi to munnar taxi
I am blogger since 2013 and i am a student of BS commerce I love reading and writing and i working at a blog such a nice information about my search thanks for sharing Hitman Pro v3.7.13.257 Crack
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog. we should follow the terms and condition of website. I think new blogger faced this type of difficulties, but Bloggpress is a great platform where you can easily post your blog with no terms & conditions
ReplyDeletepatricia@mail.postmanllc.net
ReplyDeleteDear, I like your blog very much, I can get many useful information. Hope that we can communicate with each other. By the way, have you ever used windows 7 clone hard drive ? Unfortunately I lost my partition. I do not know how to do.
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog. we should follow the terms and condition of website.
ReplyDeleteonline baccarat
บาคาร่า
baccarat
Nice Article about your business.
ReplyDeleteyou can improve you think to get more idea from here.
gclub
gclub casino online
จีคลับ
i really likes your blog and You have shared the whole concept really well. and Very beautifully soulful read! thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteบาคาร่าออนไลน์
gclub
GCLUB มือถือ
Project Management Homework Help The leading assignment help UK firm offers state of the art services to its clients with a promise of delivering all the required work well within the deadline.
ReplyDeletenice post
ReplyDeleteKhasiat daun sirsak
nice
ReplyDeleteTips Menegatasi Kista
nice post
ReplyDeleteCiri-ciri Penyakit Kista
Nice article great post comment information thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteหนังตลก
nice post
ReplyDeleteWalatra G Sea Jelly
Good work…unique site and interesting too… keep it up…looking forward for more updates.Good luck to all of you and thanks so much for your hard-work.
ReplyDeleteInterpretationServicesinIndia, ClosedCaptioningServicesinBangalore,
TranscriptionCompaniesinBangalore
Daftar Situs Terbaik
ReplyDeletemarioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
marioqq
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
BandarQ
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
situs marioqq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq
bandarq