TheOtherDave comments on Normativity and Meta-Philosophy - Less Wrong

12 Post author: Wei_Dai 23 April 2013 08:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 April 2013 08:56:42PM 0 points [-]

Ah, OK. I certainly agree that the statement in its conventional form is propositionally ambiguous.

My own sense is that "You should X" is primarily a call to action, roughly synonymous with "X!", and not really asserting a proposition at all, and trying to interpret it propositionally (by reading various "because"/"if"/etc. clauses into it) is already a mistake, akin to trying to decide what the referent of "it" is in the sentence "It is raining."

Comment author: shminux 24 April 2013 09:31:15PM 0 points [-]

My own sense is that "You should X" is primarily a call to action roughly synonymous with "X!", and not really asserting a proposition at all

I see your point, I think. However, that's not how the OP treats it:

my current thinking is that "should" usually means "better according to some shared, motivating standard or procedure of evaluation", but occasionally it can also be used to instill such a standard or procedure of evaluation in someone (such as a child) who is open to being instilled by the speaker/writer.

which is either/both asserting a proposition or/and taking action (of convincing someone to do something).

There is a big distinction between a statement about possible worlds ("is"), "should " and "do!", of course. In the OP's link it's discussed as normativity vs norm-relativity. Unfortunately, it has the standard philosophical shortcomings I alluded to in my other comment: it does not attempt to formalize it and instead goes into various historical descriptions and the differences of opinions between several equally confused schools, trying to swallow the whole thing instead of taking a careful manageable bite. Predictably, as a result, the whole thing gets retched back up undigested. Which is justified by calling it a "survey". Well, I am probably too harsh.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 April 2013 11:37:41PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough. I took you as speaking more in your own voice, and less as adopting the OP's interpretive frame, than I think you meant to be. (To be clear, I fully endorse adopting the interpretive frame of a post while responding to it, I just misunderstood the extent to which you were doing so.)

Comment author: shminux 25 April 2013 05:20:08AM 1 point [-]

Hmm, I thought I was speaking in my own voice, such as it is. In my instrumental approach "should" implies an attempt to manipulate outputs, specifically the ones leading to someone else's (modeled) outputs, not just a passive evaluation.