On 4 July 2016 at 21:12, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You say: "Finally, let me suggest that dealing in generalities as you did
> will simply put the matter over the heads of some (well, me at least)" and
> then you try to translate her conversation into algebra in a manner that
> seems designed to be precise in its ambiguity. If you were deliberately
> trying to prove Naveen's overall point, you probably couldn’t have done
> much better. Try English.
>
Huh. And here I was thinking I was simplifying things.
BTW, that isn't algebra. Since I was writing about what someone else wrote
about what someone else wrote about, I collapsed out one level to help
clarify.
I guess not, eh?
So, I'll give it one more try:
Person A is whoever said "I assume that the context of the workshop is
western democratic countries; if so, it is granted (hopefully) that we all
(well, maybe not Donald Trump) strive for a just society, a laudable
principle that in our social-democratic states evolved to a political
system based on the ideas of separation of powers (legislative, executive,
and judiciary) upholding of individual freedom(s), egalitarianism, and so
on."
Context C: "context of the workshop is western democratic countries"
A assumes C. "I assume that...."
A writes "if so...." This signifies an inference drawn from the assumption
of C. Use of "if" signifies that A admits that the inference doesn't
necessarily hold if the assumption is false.
"we all strive...." this is the proposition P. Even then, it is conditional
(i.e., the use of the "hopefully") and not necessarily uttered as fact.
Most importantly here is that A's statements cannot be taken to say
anything at all about states of affairs in other contexts. That is, if I
say "Canada is a social democracy," (wishful thinking on my part, but
whatever) this allows me to draw no conclusions whatsoever about the state
of affairs in the US.
Naveen then writes: "this prof is telling me...." which in any reasonable
reading claims an equivalence of the original statements by A and whatever
follows as written by Naveen.
He also describes an entirely different content from C, namely "as a
brown, Indian,
male researcher...", "my culture", "so-called under-developed countries"
and so on. Naveen's context is the other context C2.
Then the collection of statements such as "my culture and my country do not
strive for a just society" and "an imposition of his thoughts on mine" that
constitute the second proposition P2.
So Naveen is drawing an equivalence between a proposition in a context
(i.e., P & C) and another proposition in another context (P2 & C2) without
connecting the dots between them at all.
I'm not really sure how this makes it any clearer, but at least now I've
defined all my terms explicitly.
There are other possible explanations. For instance, I might consider that
Naveen interpreted A's statements as: many good things (i.e., P) accrue
ONLY in certain places (i.e., C) and no where else. That would be a pretty
bad misreading of A's statements as presented. And the principle of charity
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) advises me to not
assume that of Naveen's statements - so I didn't.
And as for my name, you can call me Fil, or you can call me Phil, but just
don't call me late for dinner. :-)
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
ORCID: 0000-0002-3689-5112 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3689-5112>
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|