[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Craig,

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:55 PM,  <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> [Craig]
>> Did you take the antidote @ > http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
>
>
> [Steve] > I recognize that you like to stay under a self-imposed ten word limit,
>> but if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you explain what this
>> link has to do with our discussion?
>
> Carroll satirizes the view that inference rules are premises.


Steve:
I think he was satirizing the notion that any conclusion whatsoever
can be forced from a set of premises. Such arguments rely on habits of
mind--what Pirsig calls intellectual patterns of value. Without such
patterns in place before an inquiry begins all the premises in the
world will hand us no conclusions on their own. I read Carroll's
paradox as saying that deriving an is from an is can be just as
problematic as trying to derive an ought from an is. Just as you can
refuse to grant Harris's [c1] X ought to be avoided based on the
premise [P1] X is a behavior resulting in the worst possible misery
for everyone, the  Tortoise can refuse to accept the conclusion that
Socrates is mortal.

Best,
Steve