They probably don't quite realize it, but the editors of XKCD have written a perfect finale to my posts concerning the practical/theoretical distinction in reasoning.
In the first panel, a practical question is posed to an agent. The second panel sees him interpreting it as a theoretical question. The conflation of the two creates comic absurdity, but the fact that the absurdity is so palpable indicates that something might just be basically wrong with those (prominently, J. David Vellman) who want to paint practical reasining as a species of theoretical reasoning. No matter how you slice it, the woman's question is about an intention to act, not about a true or justified belief. Intentions are not predictions about one's future behavior, nor are questions about one's intentions reducible to questions about one's beliefs concerning that behavior.
In order to really understand all of this, just think about what's happening in the third panel. The man presumably says "yes" to the question of marriage. Does he do this, or does it just happen? Is there really any significant conceptual middle ground between those two possibilities, or is one conceivably reducible to the other? Hardly. Without something akin to the theoretical/practical distinction, we are unable to make sense of the difference between doings and happenings.
In the first panel, a practical question is posed to an agent. The second panel sees him interpreting it as a theoretical question. The conflation of the two creates comic absurdity, but the fact that the absurdity is so palpable indicates that something might just be basically wrong with those (prominently, J. David Vellman) who want to paint practical reasining as a species of theoretical reasoning. No matter how you slice it, the woman's question is about an intention to act, not about a true or justified belief. Intentions are not predictions about one's future behavior, nor are questions about one's intentions reducible to questions about one's beliefs concerning that behavior.
In order to really understand all of this, just think about what's happening in the third panel. The man presumably says "yes" to the question of marriage. Does he do this, or does it just happen? Is there really any significant conceptual middle ground between those two possibilities, or is one conceivably reducible to the other? Hardly. Without something akin to the theoretical/practical distinction, we are unable to make sense of the difference between doings and happenings.
0 comments:
Post a Comment