« Linguistics-Related Miscellany | Main | 'cause the best way to learn it is via pop culture . . . »

November 06, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341e590853ef00d834f828f569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Still Not Impossible:

Comments

Jeff

so let me see if i got this straight: you're suggesting that a could reject "If God said S, then God said something"--but could still count among the ranks of the rational? pardon my prejudice, but i don't see any overwhelming pressure on the bayesian to admit a to the rationality club, regardless of what additional wacky intuitions a has. am i missing the point?

Shieva

Hi Jeff!

Sure, a completely rational agent could think that indicative conditionals, like "If God said S, then God said something", lack truth-value. There are some philosophers I can think of who think that. And not that I'm tempted to accept the view, but what's irrational about it?

But if the case bothers you, you can instantiate E and H to some other propositions such that H doesn't follow logically from E (and yet, it's reasonable to believe that H if one believes that E, given that one doesn't believe (S)).

Am I missing your point?

(I hope you're doing fantastically, by the way! And keep me in the loop about the gunk theorems . . .)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo