For the first case, you say that you're telegraphing your doubts about the quality of the evidence that philosopher X is presenting. But if I heard this, I wouldn't infer anything at all about your thoughts on the quality of X's statement; it would just be, like in math, "take C as given, treat C as a postulate, and let's go on from there." Apparently it's a waste of time/effort to demonstrate C in this context, but that doesn't mean C is iffy, just that its foundation isn't relevant to the point you want to make that takes C as its basis.
So for the second case, I think what's problematic isn't the fact that the office-locker drew inferences from past behavior and acted on them, but that she treated a human being as a postulate, something already fully determined, which a person may find offensive.
I'm not sure that students, or other ordinary people (not academics) treat assumption as stipulated postulation. I mean, most people will understand you're stipulating if you instruct them to "assume X...". But I don't think that's the natural reading of "S assumes X...", especially not while in a critical context.
Regarding the second case: sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to treat another person as "fully determined". If your partner comes to know your preferences very well, and you sometimes find your favorite foods unexpectedly waiting for you when you get up, you're more likely to be charmed than offended. But this sort of event is only possible if we do in fact treat one another as determined in this way.
Comments 3
Reply
For the first case, you say that you're telegraphing your doubts about the quality of the evidence that philosopher X is presenting. But if I heard this, I wouldn't infer anything at all about your thoughts on the quality of X's statement; it would just be, like in math, "take C as given, treat C as a postulate, and let's go on from there." Apparently it's a waste of time/effort to demonstrate C in this context, but that doesn't mean C is iffy, just that its foundation isn't relevant to the point you want to make that takes C as its basis.
So for the second case, I think what's problematic isn't the fact that the office-locker drew inferences from past behavior and acted on them, but that she treated a human being as a postulate, something already fully determined, which a person may find offensive.
Reply
Regarding the second case: sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to treat another person as "fully determined". If your partner comes to know your preferences very well, and you sometimes find your favorite foods unexpectedly waiting for you when you get up, you're more likely to be charmed than offended. But this sort of event is only possible if we do in fact treat one another as determined in this way.
Reply
Leave a comment