[FOM] Contrasting methodologies
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Tue Sep 30 16:00:53 EDT 2003
Reply to Chow.
On 9/30/03 10:51 AM, "Timothy Y. Chow" <tchow at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's supposed to show
> that if skepticism about the determinate character of N is justified,
> then skepticism about rules is justified.
What methodological principle are you using to draw this if-then inference?
The real point of my posting of 9/29/03 8:23PM was to reveal my reservations
about the normal methodology in philosophy, and contrast it with normal
methodology in f.o.m.
You seem open to this latter methodology, when you wrote
>... This question drives at something close to your suggestion: "It
> seems rather subtle to set up the foundations of simple-rule-following, so
> that it satisfies certain criteria of clarity and self containment."
And you see the contrast in methodologies when you quoted me with
>> Wittgenstein never did, to my knowledge [set up such criteria]. I have never
>>seen such criteria
>> laid out properly by anyone.
> I agree.
More information about the FOM