Conceptual schemes arise from organising content (phenomena). It doesn't matter how the content is obtained. — Isaac
The truth of any scheme can therefore be expressed because it is a matter of language and we've just established that all schemes are translatable. — Isaac
Yes, we have translated the objects of one to the objects of another. Have we translated their relations? — Isaac
That there are beliefs which function in one which would not function in another. — Isaac
Also you said it's a joke but you didn't expand. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Banno stated in this thread he's convinced philosophy is bunk, — Marchesk
If we were to detect an alien signal, but were unable to decode it despite our best efforts, wouldn't that imply incommensurability? Or just really strong encryption? — Marchesk
See as an extreme my mooted Chinese herbalist insisting that pangolin scales cure cancer - and the philosopher who defends him by claiming that "it is true for Chinese medicine, but not for Western Medicine - they are different paradigms". — Banno
Really? Sounds a little naive. Since when has one article and a few laconic remarks ever acted as some philosophical fait accompli? — Isaac
I also do not think that Davidson is doing away with conceptual schemes. Rather, it seems he's rejecting the idea that two schemes talking about the same world are not translatable one to another. — creativesoul
This bit is weird to me: — Moliere
Davidson's not wholly agreeing with the claim "truth is relative to a conceptual scheme". — creativesoul
Edit: Ah. After reading a bit further ahead, I see where you are going. Sure.If he wholly rejects the very idea of an uninterpreted world... — creativesoul
Was there a philosopher who looked at things this way?
— frank
Richard Rorty might be an example. Certainly relativism has been around since ancient philosophy. I believe the Sophists made arguments that truth was relative. — Marchesk
I'm not overly happy with this comment. It leads me to think that the effort I put into the exegesis has not been matched by a careful reading of my comments and the article. Would that you expanded on the views of Ramsey, which might take this thread in a far more interesting direction. — Banno
How would one make sense of translation, if there were only one conceptual scheme? What could translation be doing here? How would Davidson answer this question? — Banno
If we couldn't translate it, how could we know it was an alien signal? — Banno
Hence my asking about information theory. Recognising that a signal contains a message seems to me to imply some level of understanding of the message. — 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.