Biblioarchy has commented here on what Oxfordians believe. He says " Bacon was not De Vere, and no Oxfordians believe this. Take my word for it, I know them." I do take his word for it, and it is a further objection to Eric Schwitzgebel's view that such belief ascriptions have an indeterminate truth value.
Nor do I see any difference between "The Oxfordian theory is that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare", which Eric agrees does have a determinate truth value, and "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare" which, as I understand Eric, does not have a determinate truth value.
Biblioarchy's comment also reminds me of other verbs that create intensional contexts, such as 'is emphatic that', 'holds that', 'insists that', 'has received evidence that', 'has good reason to claim that' and so on. It is entirely implausible that the substitution problem connected with these verbs is different in any way from the problem of belief ascriptions.
44 comments:
Sentences don't have definite truth values. The meaning of a sentence changes depending on when it is said, who says it, who they are saying it to, etc.
Oxfordians don't believe that Bacon was de Vere.
And Oxfordians don't believe that Shakespeare was de Vere either.
You got it right the first time. Oxfordians believe that de Vere wrote the plays traditionally attributed to Shakespeare (who they refer to as "Shaksper", but who I refer to in this sentence as "Shakespeare").
If it turns out they are right, then the meaning of the word "Shakespeare" will change, and that might change the truth value of *the sentence*, but it doesn't change the truth value of the proposition.
Likewise, if it turns out that Bacon wrote the plays commonly attributed to Shakespeare (that man that the Oxfordians call "Shaksper"), then the meaning of the word "Shakespeare" will change.
If it turns out that there was no Shakespeare (which implies that there was no "Shaksper"), then I was wrong, and Oxfordians don't believe that de Vere wrote the plays commonly attributed to Shakespeare. What they do believe is that de Vere wrote the plays which people traditionally have referred to when saying "the plays written by Shakespeare".
Surely you agree that the meanings of words change, and sometimes that they change so dramatically that it causes a sentence "A is B" to go from true to false. So how can you possibly say that *sentences* have determinate truth values?
"Biblioarchy's comment also reminds me of other verbs that create intensional contexts"
Which reminds *me* that sentences don't even have to have such verbs to cause this sort of trouble.
"The Undertaker is the half-brother of Kane."
"Mark William Calaway is The Undertaker."
"Glenn Thomas Jacobs is Kane."
"Mark William Calaway is not the half-brother of Glenn Thomas Jacobs."
>>Which reminds *me* that sentences don't even have to have such verbs to cause this sort of trouble.
<<
How do the sentences you mention have 'this sort of trouble'. What do you mean by 'this sort of trouble' (I'm quite clear what I mean, but I would like to understand what you mean).
>>Surely you agree that the meanings of words change, and sometimes that they change so dramatically that it causes a sentence "A is B" to go from true to false. So how can you possibly say that *sentences* have determinate truth values?
<<
There is an implicit assumption in logic (unless otherwise stated) that the same terms always have the same meaning. A 'determinate' truth value in this context (i.e. as used by Eric) means having one or other truth value at any particular time. It doesn't mean that the truth value can't change if the world changes appropriately.
>> How do the sentences you mention have 'this sort of trouble'. What do you mean by 'this sort of trouble'
"The Undertaker is the half-brother of Kane." is only true or false in context. Depending on the context, I might say it is true, or I might say it is false.
>> There is an implicit assumption in logic (unless otherwise stated) that the same terms always have the same meaning.
And when that assumption does not hold, neither does logic.
And that assumption does not always hold. The same terms do not always have the same meaning.
So logic does not always hold for those things we use in ordinary conversation (those things used in Wikipedia), which we put in between quotation marks, which are referred to as "sentences".
>> A 'determinate' truth value in this context (i.e. as used by Eric) means having one or other truth value at any particular time. It doesn't mean that the truth value can't change if the world changes appropriately.
That's meaningless, then. Every time I read a sentence, the world is different. Every time a sentence is uttered, the world is different.
>>Every time I read a sentence, the world is different.
But not 'appropriately different'. I used the word 'appropriately' in my comment above.
>> >>Every time I read a sentence, the world is different.
>> But not 'appropriately different'.
Not always. But sometimes.
Sometimes the sentence "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare" is interpreted as something that is true. Sometimes it is interpreted as something that is false.
Personally I think I'd be more likely to interpret it as something that is false (namely, that Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shaksper). But that could be because I have the context of having read these blog posts.
I'm not sure you have made it clear how you interpret this sentence. Is "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare" true or false? If true, you do see how I can interpret it to be false, right? If false, you do see how someone could interpret it to be true, right?
>>I'm not sure you have made it clear how you interpret this sentence. Is "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare" true or false?
<<
Taking the reference of 'Shakspeare' as fixed by the description 'author of the well-known plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet etc', then it is true.
Taking it as fixed by the description 'the Stratford man', whose will we possess etc, it is false.
Do you understand what I mean by the technical concept 'fixed by the reference' by the way? Have you read Naming and Necessity?
>>"The Undertaker is the half-brother of Kane."
Are these fictional characters? I've never heard of them.
>> Taking the reference of 'Shakspeare' as fixed by the description 'author of the well-known plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet etc', then it is true.
No it isn't. The same person is fixed by the description "author of the well-known plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet etc" and "the Stratford man".
>>No it isn't. The same person is fixed by the description "author of the well-known plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet etc" and "the Stratford man".
<<
Only if you believe in the identity in question. "The Stratford man" specifically signifies the person whose will we possess, who went to grammar school in Stratford etc. The evidence is that there was just one person fitting that description, but there is nothing directly to connect him with the person who wrote the plays, except the name, and the chronology.
"Only if you believe in the identity in question."
I do believe in that identity (i.e. "the writer of the plays" = "the person whose will we possess, who went to grammar school in Stratford etc."). Therefore, you agree that the sentence is false. Q.E.D.
(What if I believed that "the writer of the plays" = "Bacon"? Wouldn't you still agree that the sentence is false?)
The interpretation under which the sentence "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare" is true is the interpretation under which "Shakespeare" is *not* fixed. It is the interpretation under which "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare" means "Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere wrote Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, etc." (And the former is, I'd say, not a very good way to phrase the latter.)
Going back to the sentence in Wikipedia, which is phrased much better than your "Oxfordians believe that de Vere is Shakespeare":
"The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship proposes that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon."
Here "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon" is clearly fixed by the description "the person whose will we possess, who went to grammar school in Stratford etc."
And so, for "Francis Bacon was Shakespeare" to be true without equivocating on Shakespeare, you would be saying that "Francis Bacon was the person whose will we possess, who went to grammar school in Stratford etc." I don't think Cantor believed that.
OK then let's fix the referent of 'Shakespeare' as 'the man who wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon".
You are perhaps making a reasonable point that the meaning of 'Shakespeare' is not fixed and certain. For me, it means the guy, whoever it was, who wrote the plays. I think that's true for most people, because they know very little of the personal life of the man from Stratford.
I'm happy to change the example, unless you think it's deeply relevant to the problem before us.
"You are perhaps making a reasonable point that the meaning of 'Shakespeare' is not fixed and certain. For me, it means the guy, whoever it was, who wrote the plays. I think that's true for most people, because they know very little of the personal life of the man from Stratford."
In a different context, sure. But the original context (from Wikipedia) used the phrase "traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare". I think it's clear from the context that they didn't mean "traditionally attributed to whoever actually wrote the plays". Assuming there wasn't a grand conspiracy to concoct a fake will, fake marriage documents, fake baptism, etc., we know and agree on who the plays were traditionally attributed to, even if we don't know and agree on who actually wrote them.
I suppose it's possible they meant "the plays which bear the name 'William Shakespeare'". In that case there is no reference to a person at all, only a reference to a name (and the name "Shakespeare" is not equal to the name "Bacon"). And if that's what they meant, they should have just said that.
(Actually another possibility is that the sentence is one of those wikified mishmashes of half-complete thoughts. But let's ignore that possibility.)
In any case, if the terms used in the sentence are not fixed and certain, then the sentence is not "surely true".
"I'm happy to change the example, unless you think it's deeply relevant to the problem before us."
Feel free to try. :) My position is that the problem *is* the ambiguity/equivocation, though, and that if you eliminate that then the problem goes away.
>> Claiming "DeVere wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare" is quite different than "Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare".
Well yeah, of course it is. The latter expresses something that is true. The former expresses something that is false.
"OK then let's fix the referent of 'Shakespeare' as 'the man who wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon"."
In order to do that we need to agree on who that was, right? If we just leave it floating out there as possibly being one person, and possibly being another person, and possibly being several people, and possibly not being a person at all (maybe aliens wrote the plays), then we haven't fixed it.
>>In a different context, sure. But the original context (from Wikipedia) used the phrase "traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare". I think it's clear from the context that they didn't mean "traditionally attributed to whoever actually wrote the plays".
Ahem, Wikipedia says "traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon". The italicised bit clearly signifies the one that Oxfordians call 'Shakesper' or 'the Stratfordian'. Thus it is not trivial to ask whether Shakespeare (the guy who wrote the plays) is the same person as William Shakespeare of Stratford.
What we are getting to that is perhaps is philosophically relevant is the relation between descriptions and proper names. Can we actually draw that distinction?
There is a history to this. Russell famously thought that proper names were truncated descriptions. If they are, and if we use Russell's analysis of descriptions, then the substitution problem disappears. You could argue that 'Shakesper' is simply short for the description 'the man who lived in Stratford etc', and 'Shakespeare' for 'the man who wrote the plays etc' and 'Edward de Vere' for 'the 18th earl of Oxford'. Combine that with Russell's analysis of description sentences, and the problem would be solved.
>> Ahem, Wikipedia says "traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon". The italicised bit clearly signifies the one that Oxfordians call 'Shakesper' or 'the Stratfordian'.
I agree! So it clearly does not signify "whoever actually wrote the plays". And I'm pretty sure that this is not the person who Cantor thought was identical with Francis Bacon.
>> Thus it is not trivial to ask whether Shakespeare (the guy who wrote the plays) is the same person as William Shakespeare of Stratford.
No, it's not trivial. But it reverses the subject and predicate from the usual positions. The question you seem to be asking is whether or not William Shakespeare of Stratford (the subject) wrote the plays Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, etc. (the predicate).
>> You could argue that 'Shakesper' is simply short for the description 'the man who lived in Stratford etc', and 'Shakespeare' for 'the man who wrote the plays etc' and 'Edward de Vere' for 'the 18th earl of Oxford'.
I am not arguing that, though. Either "Shakespeare" stands for a concrete individual who the person uttering the sentence is referring to (essentially, pointing to "that guy"), or "was Shakespeare" stands for "wrote Hamlet, Othello, etc."
"Shakespeare (the guy who wrote the plays)"
Why do you assume that it was exactly one guy who wrote the plays? Whatever it is that led to this assumption might be something that could fix the reference. But if you don't know it was exactly one guy, and your "subject" is simply "wrote the plays", that's not a subject at all, it's a predicate.
>>I agree! So it clearly does not signify "whoever actually wrote the plays". And I'm pretty sure that this is not the person who Cantor thought was identical with Francis Bacon.
This seems like wilfull misrepresentation of my position. "William Shakespeare of Stratford" refers to the Stratford man. ""William Shakespeare" refers to whoever wrote the plays, who may or may not be identical with the Stratford man.
>>And I'm pretty sure that this is not the person who Cantor thought was identical with Francis Bacon
Cantor thought that Shakespeare was Francis Bacon. He did not think that Shakespeare was William Shakespeare of Stratford.
>> This seems like wilfull misrepresentation of my position.
I apologize. It was not willful. I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say. "William Shakespeare of Stratford", as used in the Wikipedia sentence, refers to the Stratford man. We agree on that. As for your other sentence, I don't know what that means.
If "William Shakespeare" refers to "whoever wrote the plays", without any assumptions as to who wrote them, it seems to me that means "William Shakespeare" is a concept, not a concrete, and that the sentence would be phrased as "De Vere was a William Shakespeare".
>>I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say.
As I said above, you need to read up on the idea of 'reference fixing'. Naming and necessity is a good start. It's in paperback and cheap, I think.
I'm not the one who is puzzled by Frege's puzzle, though. It seems to me that it's better if I don't confuse myself by worrying about possible worlds and necessary and contingent and a priori and a posteriori.
The fewer unnecessary assumptions I add the better, right?
>>The fewer unnecessary assumptions I add the better, right?
Not so much assumptions as background knowledge. I think you contribute some useful and interesting ideas, partly because you don't have a background and can challenge the inevitable hand-waving, and force me to revisit the assumptions behind the handwaving. Which is good. But sometimes a little background knowledge can help, too. Some of the earlier discussions were made extra painful by the lack of it.
The biggest problem I see in this discussion is the over-use of blanket statements of "Oxfordians believe..." Implying 'ALL Oxfordians' which continues to make this entire discussion semi-ridiculous.
Think on Korzybski...'some Oxfordians' or perhaps as RAW suggested.."Somebunall (Some, but not all)
http://www.generalsemantics.org/archives/gsdf/gsdf/index.php/forums/8-the-agora/857-robert-anton-wilson-talking-about-korzybskis-influence-on-him.html
this simple addition to your sentences would make them approach what you call truth...Veritas..Vere.Verily!.
Also, The statement "You could argue that 'Shakesper' is simply short for the description 'the man who lived in Stratford etc', and 'Shakespeare' for 'the man who wrote the plays etc' and 'Edward de Vere' for 'the 18th earl of Oxford'.
This has numerous linguistic holes and errors. Edward was the 17th Earl, his son, Henry Was the 18th. Not to be confused with his Bastard son, Edward Vere.
No records exist that show the Stratford man ever attended the Grammar School. So to add that piece of disinfomation, or conjectured supposing, to the 'etc. in 'the man who lived in Stratford etc', disqualifies it as a description we can call true.
Some Oxfordians and many Stratfordians believe that more than one hand was at play on many of the texts. Also that they appear to be palimpsests of sorts, revised and rewritten over the years by 'The Author', Shakespeare, whomEver he was, and perhaps, a cadre of University Wits in the Fisher's Folly Days Mid 1580's. This would of course, completely demolish the Stratfordian time-line, setting it back a decade, and disqualify the Stratford man.
And Bacon,Derby, etc... may very well has had a hand in the editing of the Texts after the Author's death...
Re: Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/In_the_news
really enjoying the discussion. thank you.
To Biblioarchy: thanks for those enlightening comments! I'm not a Shakespeare authorship expert, and I am merely using it as an example to illustrate a well-known problem in the Philosophy of Language/Philosophy of Mind.
I went to look up more in the Big Shakespeare Book in my library but someone, probably children doing homework, has removed it.
Best wishes,
Edward
>>The biggest problem I see in this discussion is the over-use of blanket statements of "Oxfordians believe..." Implying 'ALL Oxfordians' which continues to make this entire discussion semi-ridiculous.
<<
Again, I was using the Oxfordian theory to illustrate how descriptions of theories are vulnerable to the substitution problem, which is a philosophical problem, not a attributional one.
The classic example in the philosophy of Mind/language is the Superman/Clark Kent one. You might object that there is no such person as either of them (they are fictional characters) but that would miss the point.
"A was B"
"C was B"
Therefore "A was C"
This isn't even a valid proof.
>> You might object that there is no such person as either of them (they are fictional characters) but that would miss the point.
The fact that we have to guess what your point is, instead of you stating exactly what your point is, is what leads to "misrepresentation of your position".
>>"A was B"
"C was B"
Therefore "A was C"
This isn't even a valid proof.
<<
Why not? Assuming that the 'is' is the 'is' of identity, that is?
>>he fact that we have to guess what your point is
As I said, there is much handwaving here. 'Handwaving' is making jumps in the argument that are justified by the assumptions that people in the profession commonly accept.
You are right to challenge these assumptions, but meet me halfway here. There is no need to be aggressive or rude, which is how you sometimes come across.
:)
"A was B"
"C was B"
Therefore "A was C"
This isn't even a valid proof.
>> Why not? Assuming that the 'is' is the 'is' of identity, that is?
What "is"? I see a "was".
Ronald Reagan was the president of the US.
Bill Clinton was the president of the US.
Therefore Ronald Reagan was Bill Clinton?
Eric suggested a more real-world hypothetical might be someone (we'll call her "Lois") who is disposed to say "Twain wrote Huck Finn" and also disposed to say "Clemens did not write Huck Finn".
My question is, what if I took out a picture of Twain/Clemens, which you and I both recognized as Twain/Clemens, and asked "Does Lois believe that that guy wrote Huck Finn?" Let's say I am completely unaware of Lois's misconceptions about Twain/Clemens.
It seems to me that the best answer in such a situation might very well be, not "Yes", and not "No", but something along the lines of "It's complicated". And I would argue that whatever the answer one gives to this, one should give the same answer to "Does Lois believe that Twain wrote Huck Finn?" and "Does Lois believe that Clemens wrote Huck Finn?"
>>Ronald Reagan was the president of the US.
Bill Clinton was the president of the US.
Therefore Ronald Reagan was Bill Clinton?
<<
I was assuming 'A' 'B' and 'C' were proper names. The identity statements we are discussing use proper names.
Ad hominem removed. This is a logic blog. Ad hominem is a fallacy.
Post a Comment