Interesting about how around 13:00 Quine makes it clear (at least to me) that the statement "snow is white" is not clear, since we know that color qualia aren't "real" in materialism. The next statement is then by Dennett claiming some extremely abstract and long statement about consciousness is "crystal clear"... Huh? How is this not obviously inconsistent?
@LooksAeterna We'll skip the complaint/critique business; if you want to assume that I'm lying about the semantic connotations I attach to the word... fine. 'Critique' then. "...being competent to decide the final epistemological questions." - And what exactly does that mean? And how is it differentiable for competence simpliciter? "What do you make of old Jones? Is he a competent moral philosopher?" "Competent enough I should say, but he's not competent enough to decide final moral questions".
@LooksAeterna I'm certainly unaware, as a native English speaker, of any 'emotional/irrational' connotation to the word 'complaint'. If you like you can expose it to any number of implication tests from the good old days of ordinary language philosophy e.g. the open question argument 'Jones has a complaint' 'Yes but is it a rational complaint?' etc. If you substitute, as you appear happy enough to do, 'critique' for 'complaint' it doesn't make a difference to what I wrote.
@LooksAeterna If you're aware of Quine's significance within contemporary philosophy why do you consider epistemology and metaphysics to be outwith his competence. It would be as if I said Wittgenstein had no competence in the philosophy of psychology because his original training was as an engineer. In the passage you are referring to Dennett is using the term 'materialism' with regards Quine's views on the Mind, not his views regarding the manifest scientific worldview.
@LooksAeterna Well, to quote Dennett from another interview "I'll say it again slower I guess". You complain that Quine is assuming naturalism. Maybe he is here, but this is a panel discussion conducted by and for people with a scholarly interest in Quine's work, it's not supposed to be an argument from first principles for the positions he advances. For that you will have to look to his published work, most obviously Word and Object. I suggested you read it. You refuse. Fine; conversation over.
@LooksAeterna Let me paraphrase your last question 'why should I read a book in which the philosopher I'm criticizing sets out the underlying logic of his position in order to criticize his naturalism rather than basing my views entirely on an interview format discussion he participated in towards the end of his life'. To address your other issues, he isn't addressing global scepticism when he's talking about dreaming, he's addressing generalised scepticism concerning science. For a response...
@LooksAeterna I'm not sure what's stranger, referring to Quine - of all people - as 'postmodern' or using 'postmodern' pejoratively while simultaneously advancing a conspiracist/psychoanalytic account of the motives someone has for holding a particular position rather than engaging with the reasons they offer for their position. These aren't 'sycophants', Dennett and Horwich are two of the most esteemed contemporary analytical philosophers. Go read Word and Object and engage in real criticism.
@LooksAeterna Wait... what? A moment ago you were complaining that his argument against global scepticism (which wasn't an argument against global scepticism) assumed materialism and now you proclaim that no one could do other than to assume materialism. a) Don't you think it would be reasonable to set up consistent metrics to judge philosophers by? b) Doesn't this ignore the fact that arguments for and against naturalism is one of the main projects within metaphysics?
@LooksAeterna ...offers I must say I'd be overjoyed if some group was to pay me sums of money to advance arguments I already believed in (which is I guess the justification Plantinga et al use for taking money from the Templeton Foundation; money for old rope). But I have to tell you in all honestly no such offers have been forthcoming. So, when exactly is it the Rockefeller Foundation appears in the picture? Why do they fund particular metaphysicians? Where did you come to learn of this? etc
@LooksAeterna Uh-huh. So, if I take a step back your argument goes like this; Quine's answer to a question asked in a mainly exegetical discussion of his work fails to satisfy your metric that it must refute global scepticism without assuming naturalism therefore Quine isn't an epistemologist because... the Rockefeller Foundation. What? a) What does Quine have to do with economic behaviour? b) Even if he did, not all (SADLY) philosophers are Quineans, most are still in love with Frege.
@LooksAeterna Well why don't I throw another one in for good measure. You say 'Quine's argument about dreaming doesn't refute global scepticism; it just assumes 'materialism'' (if you like, though that's the wrong term)'. I say a) it isn't supposed to be about global scepticism, b) He gives arguments for 'materialism' in Word and Object, perhaps you should read that, this is an exegetical discussion among colleagues. c) You call me a liar and an 'intellectual hitman' on behalf of 'financiers'.
@LooksAeterna You denied he was 'competent' with regards to either (you were unclear) epistemology or metaphysics, which given his career seems a rather baffling claim to make. Okay, well let's run with your belief that Quine and Dennett are 'the products of the Rockefeller Foundation', does that mean those who oppose Quine (those who advocate for the analytic/synthetic distinction or champion a prioricity) are not products of the Rockefeller Foundation? As a Quinean, happy to take funding...
@LooksAeterna ...to global scepticism broadly consistent with Quine I'd point you in the direction of Putnam's Reason, Truth and History if you hadn't made it clear you have little intention of doing any actual research to provide some basic grounding for your views.
@LooksAeterna (Well Analytical Philosophy certainly isn't 'skewed' towards Quineanism that I can see, but no matter) Why don't you try to restate your argument then, if you feel I keep misrepresenting it. Perhaps (don't want to burden you with any unfair norms of charity or that sort of thing) you could assume that I didn't understand it. Perhaps it was too profound; it does happen in philosophy. Why don't you try to articulate what your CRITIQUE is exactly.
@LooksAeterna 'Fields beyond his competence' what, metaphysics and epistemology? You do know who Quine is, don't you? He's responsible for an entire branch of epistemology, and is the precursor to roughly half of the most prominent meta-physicians of the 20th century (Lewis and Armstrong spring instantly to mind). Not to mention his influence on philosophy of language and (through Dennett) philosophy of mind. To dismiss him as merely a 'mathematical logician' is incredibly ignorant.
I'm not a linguist or a philosopher or a scientist. But at least I know that Chomsky is coherent and if I were to pursue the requisite foundation I could talk intelligently about it with people. Quine and Dennett don't strike me the same way. Is this even science? It just sounds like unfounded stipulations; opinions. Quine doesn't reference anything except himself.
@LooksAeterna 'In depth study' - What? Read his most famous book where he attempts, amongst other things, to provide justifications for naturalism. That's not 'in depth' study that's a 'you fail my first year module if you don't read it' study. He doesn't influence public opinion in this interview; this interview is almost impossible to find (in the UK at any rate). You're not an 'intelligent critic' you're an uninformed critic exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect.
HOLY SHIT! You did it! You refuted Quine in three UA-cam comments! You should publish this! I'm serious!
THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW!
Interesting about how around 13:00 Quine makes it clear (at least to me) that the statement "snow is white" is not clear, since we know that color qualia aren't "real" in materialism. The next statement is then by Dennett claiming some extremely abstract and long statement about consciousness is "crystal clear"... Huh? How is this not obviously inconsistent?
Nice inductive reply to skepticism.
@LooksAeterna We'll skip the complaint/critique business; if you want to assume that I'm lying about the semantic connotations I attach to the word... fine. 'Critique' then.
"...being competent to decide the final epistemological questions." - And what exactly does that mean? And how is it differentiable for competence simpliciter? "What do you make of old Jones? Is he a competent moral philosopher?" "Competent enough I should say, but he's not competent enough to decide final moral questions".
@LooksAeterna I'm certainly unaware, as a native English speaker, of any 'emotional/irrational' connotation to the word 'complaint'. If you like you can expose it to any number of implication tests from the good old days of ordinary language philosophy e.g. the open question argument 'Jones has a complaint' 'Yes but is it a rational complaint?' etc. If you substitute, as you appear happy enough to do, 'critique' for 'complaint' it doesn't make a difference to what I wrote.
I like Quine. I used to abhor his philosophy but I've come to like it.
@LooksAeterna If you're aware of Quine's significance within contemporary philosophy why do you consider epistemology and metaphysics to be outwith his competence. It would be as if I said Wittgenstein had no competence in the philosophy of psychology because his original training was as an engineer.
In the passage you are referring to Dennett is using the term 'materialism' with regards Quine's views on the Mind, not his views regarding the manifest scientific worldview.
I am with LooksAeterna!
redundance theory at 7:00?
@LooksAeterna Well, to quote Dennett from another interview "I'll say it again slower I guess". You complain that Quine is assuming naturalism. Maybe he is here, but this is a panel discussion conducted by and for people with a scholarly interest in Quine's work, it's not supposed to be an argument from first principles for the positions he advances. For that you will have to look to his published work, most obviously Word and Object. I suggested you read it. You refuse. Fine; conversation over.
@LooksAeterna Let me paraphrase your last question 'why should I read a book in which the philosopher I'm criticizing sets out the underlying logic of his position in order to criticize his naturalism rather than basing my views entirely on an interview format discussion he participated in towards the end of his life'. To address your other issues, he isn't addressing global scepticism when he's talking about dreaming, he's addressing generalised scepticism concerning science. For a response...
@LooksAeterna I'm not sure what's stranger, referring to Quine - of all people - as 'postmodern' or using 'postmodern' pejoratively while simultaneously advancing a conspiracist/psychoanalytic account of the motives someone has for holding a particular position rather than engaging with the reasons they offer for their position. These aren't 'sycophants', Dennett and Horwich are two of the most esteemed contemporary analytical philosophers. Go read Word and Object and engage in real criticism.
@LooksAeterna Wait... what? A moment ago you were complaining that his argument against global scepticism (which wasn't an argument against global scepticism) assumed materialism and now you proclaim that no one could do other than to assume materialism. a) Don't you think it would be reasonable to set up consistent metrics to judge philosophers by? b) Doesn't this ignore the fact that arguments for and against naturalism is one of the main projects within metaphysics?
@LooksAeterna ...offers I must say I'd be overjoyed if some group was to pay me sums of money to advance arguments I already believed in (which is I guess the justification Plantinga et al use for taking money from the Templeton Foundation; money for old rope). But I have to tell you in all honestly no such offers have been forthcoming. So, when exactly is it the Rockefeller Foundation appears in the picture? Why do they fund particular metaphysicians? Where did you come to learn of this? etc
@LooksAeterna Uh-huh. So, if I take a step back your argument goes like this; Quine's answer to a question asked in a mainly exegetical discussion of his work fails to satisfy your metric that it must refute global scepticism without assuming naturalism therefore Quine isn't an epistemologist because... the Rockefeller Foundation. What? a) What does Quine have to do with economic behaviour? b) Even if he did, not all (SADLY) philosophers are Quineans, most are still in love with Frege.
@LooksAeterna Well why don't I throw another one in for good measure. You say 'Quine's argument about dreaming doesn't refute global scepticism; it just assumes 'materialism'' (if you like, though that's the wrong term)'. I say a) it isn't supposed to be about global scepticism, b) He gives arguments for 'materialism' in Word and Object, perhaps you should read that, this is an exegetical discussion among colleagues. c) You call me a liar and an 'intellectual hitman' on behalf of 'financiers'.
@LooksAeterna You denied he was 'competent' with regards to either (you were unclear) epistemology or metaphysics, which given his career seems a rather baffling claim to make. Okay, well let's run with your belief that Quine and Dennett are 'the products of the Rockefeller Foundation', does that mean those who oppose Quine (those who advocate for the analytic/synthetic distinction or champion a prioricity) are not products of the Rockefeller Foundation? As a Quinean, happy to take funding...
@LooksAeterna ...to global scepticism broadly consistent with Quine I'd point you in the direction of Putnam's Reason, Truth and History if you hadn't made it clear you have little intention of doing any actual research to provide some basic grounding for your views.
@LooksAeterna (Well Analytical Philosophy certainly isn't 'skewed' towards Quineanism that I can see, but no matter) Why don't you try to restate your argument then, if you feel I keep misrepresenting it. Perhaps (don't want to burden you with any unfair norms of charity or that sort of thing) you could assume that I didn't understand it. Perhaps it was too profound; it does happen in philosophy. Why don't you try to articulate what your CRITIQUE is exactly.
@LooksAeterna 'Fields beyond his competence' what, metaphysics and epistemology? You do know who Quine is, don't you? He's responsible for an entire branch of epistemology, and is the precursor to roughly half of the most prominent meta-physicians of the 20th century (Lewis and Armstrong spring instantly to mind). Not to mention his influence on philosophy of language and (through Dennett) philosophy of mind. To dismiss him as merely a 'mathematical logician' is incredibly ignorant.
I'm not a linguist or a philosopher or a scientist. But at least I know that Chomsky is coherent and if I were to pursue the requisite foundation I could talk intelligently about it with people. Quine and Dennett don't strike me the same way. Is this even science? It just sounds like unfounded stipulations; opinions. Quine doesn't reference anything except himself.
@LooksAeterna 'In depth study' - What? Read his most famous book where he attempts, amongst other things, to provide justifications for naturalism. That's not 'in depth' study that's a 'you fail my first year module if you don't read it' study. He doesn't influence public opinion in this interview; this interview is almost impossible to find (in the UK at any rate). You're not an 'intelligent critic' you're an uninformed critic exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect.