tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post2266418813368400138..comments2015-02-26T15:42:28.753-06:00Comments on Words, Ideas, and Things: On 'Metaethical Contextualism Defended' (Pt. 1)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-19068575334717687492011-06-09T03:52:52.417-05:002011-06-09T03:52:52.417-05:00That's a very good point. (Darn.)
Given her i...That's a very good point. (Darn.)<br /><br />Given her information, the commander is equally justified in thinking she ought (given the facts) to send the whole team upstream or downstream, but <em>not</em> justified in thinking she ought (given the facts) to split the team no matter which way the child went.<br /><br />So the sense of correctness about splitting the team can't be what the commander ought to do given the facts <em>or</em> what the commander is most justified in thinking that is. We can't just use general epistemology with information invariantism after all.<br /><br />The non-deviant usage of 'ought' in the story appears to be concerned with the best strategy for achieving the commander's goal, given her information. Now I understand why you and Gunnar saw the need to complicate things with a second variable in the meaning of 'ought.'<br /><br />This also ties into the news-sensitive thing because the best strategy to achieve any goal — given some starting information — will always include improving that information and revising the strategy when there's opportunity to do so.<br /><br />Thanks for the response, Steve!Garren Hochstetlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689703486134811102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-66465804113482780102011-06-08T16:22:41.899-05:002011-06-08T16:22:41.899-05:00Hi Garren,
Thanks for the attention to our paper....Hi Garren,<br /><br />Thanks for the attention to our paper. Your summary seems accurate as well as succinct.<br /><br />Your preferred solution is invariantism (with regard to information), correct?<br /><br />The problem for this solution is that in your original scenario, the commander is already in a position to know that given all the facts, either he ought to send the whole team upstream (80%), or he ought to send the whole team downstream (100%). The one claim that he can definitely know to be false is that he ought to split the team (60%). But how can "the most justified belief" be the only one that the commander knows to be false?Steve Finlaynoreply@blogger.com