Constitutive rules can be written as "X counts as Y"
So "a diagonal move of any length counts as a move for a bishop in chess".
"Here is a hand" can be read as constitutive in that it is setting out what counts as a hand.
How would "the human being consists of body and soul" be written as a constitutive rule?
"A human being counts as a body and a soul" or "A body and a soul counts as a human being"?
DO they work? Perhaps. — Banno
Really? Not over here. For Alice, maybe. — Banno
But what I don't see, is how this solves the regress problem (I assume this is what it is meant to do, since that was the problem mentioned in the OP. — PossibleAaran
Yes, I think that's exactly the issue which Sam26 brings up, the infinite regress of justification. One proposition justifies another, which justifies another, so on and so forth. Hinge-props are proposed as a means to put an end to this infinite regress, by being beyond reasonable doubt without needing to be justified. This is supposed to ground certainty.
My argument is that because hinge-props are outside "the game" of epistemology, and are therefore not subject to justification, they are actually the most dubious. — Metaphysician Undercover
won't a sceptic simply say "what is the justification for believing that there is anything there at all? — PossibleAaran
LOL. That would be why Moore on an LSD trip, shrieking here is one flipper, now here is another, is simply failing to share in a language game with his audience. It wouldn’t be a failure of a perceptual experience game. — apokrisis
Thanks for the clarification. It depends what is meant by saying "this counts as a hand". As I said, if it is an ostensive definition of "hand" then I don't find it problematic at all. One can simply stipulate that by "hand", one means, this. Is such an ostensive definition a dubious proposition? In one sense I don't think a definition can be dubious. If I choose, for my purposes, to use the word 'hand' as a name for this, what is there to doubt? One might ask, 'why call this a hand and not some other name?', but this is a semantic, and not a substantive, question. The simple answer is 'I've decided on this name. You can use another name if you like. It doesn't really matter'. — PossibleAaran
Principally, the boundaries of exactly what is and is not part of the hand, are not defined. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's only a partial failure, which any erudite audience would recognize as such. Mistaking a hand for a flipper is not so bad; I could think of much worse perceptual failures or visual agnosias ("wife for hat"). — Janus
So what does that say? If failure can be partial - and indeed would always be partial under your view, as what would total look like - then success would also only be partial.
Or in other words, belief and doubt are relative, never absolute. They are opposed limits on certainty. — apokrisis
There are many reasons (of doubt) for the audience to reject such a proposal as "this is a hand". Principally, the boundaries of exactly what is and is not part of the hand, are not defined. Moore would hold up an entire arm, saying "this is a hand", not indicating whether things like the wrist and the fingers are part of the hand or not. So even ostensive definitions need to be justified, clarified by further descriptions. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is a way of understanding "This is a hand" that is not explained in yet more propositions - "this is this". Understanding is shown by behaving in a way that agrees that this is a hand. The sceptic has not understood how to use the word "hand". — Banno
It makes no sense to talk about it being just language and not abut the world-in-itself; they are the very same. — Banno
It makes no sense to talk about it being just language and not abut the world-in-itself; they are the very same. — Banno
Since meaning is use, sense is found by using a language. A language that was not about the world could not have a use. Consider propositional logic. Like an engine with the clutch in, it would grind away without engaging.
If epistemology is no more than an engine spinning away without making contact with the world, then why bother. — Banno
A trivial split, as opposed to your world-shattering epistemic cut. — Banno
You set up a dualism at the base of your doctrine. If I don't accept your doctrine, I do not need to accept your basic dualism. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.