Thursday, January 20, 2011

(PTL) The Roots of CRITOjazz!

An early paper (1995) in which I employ a (Harvey) Siegelian view of CT ("to be appropriately moved by reasons") while introducing the method of "CRITO":

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED384062&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED384062

6 comments:

  1. An effective method, I think. It strikes me that "I" could possibly sound redundant, as it seems to me that an effective summation of reasons would include an explanation of the inference.

    Also, I was wondering if you knew of an electronic source for your doctoral thesis. I am interested in reading it and you mentioned that you no longer have a hard copy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The "I" allows the thinker to reassess the adequacy/applicability/sufficiency of the reasons for the conclusion. In practice, our reasons often seem "reasonable" (as perfectly acceptable assertions), even though we have lost sight of their essential role in defending a particular conclusion.

    If you've read Bridges and/or "Footprints," you've seen the expansion and refinement of my relatively crude efforts at that earlier stage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Logically, the assessment of the truth of each reason given is distinct from its inferential force (individually or in conjunction with other reasons) in providing grounds for the truth of the conclusion. Thus although you have stated the conclusion in C and listed the reasons you adduce for it in R (and will evaluate their truth in T), an explicit consideration of the move from R to C is utterly necessary. It seems redundant because we usually do not break out those functions as separate steps, but part of the power of logic is that it slows you down so you consider things separately, going the long way around the block. It feels strange, but it pays to get good at it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt: I would have preferred to post a link to our later, somewhat more refined (and very deep and wide, thank you very much!), version of this paper -- but the Journal doesn't allow access to their old papers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We must have the text of that paper somewhere; we could post it in toto, too, or put it up somewhere else and link to it. Let me know if you want me to look for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't seem to have a copy of our published version (from Inquiry).

    ReplyDelete