= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Another Argument Against Eliezer's Meta-Ethics - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (35)
So if an Idealized Aris (IA) knows the exact height of Everest, and the Base Aris doesn't, does that mean the only options are:
IA does not make use of the words "height" and "Everest".
IA makes use of the words and means the same thing as I do, so he can only know the height of Everest if I already know the height of Everest.
IA's referents for the words "height" and "Everest" are different from BA's. Therefore height and Everest doesn't mean what I think it means.
Somewhere your logic has holes in it.
It's not true that if IA and BA mean the same things by "height" and "Everest", IA can only know the height of Everest if BA already knows the height of Everest. My 2 does not use the same (erroneous) logic.
Do you have to the same meaning if you have the same referent?
For example "that beaker of water" to five year old means something wet, fluid and drinkable in a glass container whereas to a chemistry student it means a fluid made of hydrogen and oxygen, that can be used to dilute solutions. Yet they are both talking about the same thing.
You're right. My argument makes more sense if I substitute "meaning" for "referent" in 3 (which I did). Thanks.
Not exactly the same erroneous logic, but erroneous nevertheless. IE's happening to decide to judge something right wouldn't make that right anymore than chopping bits off the kilogram prototype would change the mass of a kilogram, even if Eliezer actually defined right in that way (isn't he refusing to define it that precisely?).