Page 1 of 1

Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: October 31st, 2009, 3:20 pm
by Mornche Geddick
I know Lewis took them seriously enough to revise his argument, but I don't see, personally, that they make much difference. Anscombe objected that physical events should be seen as "non-rational" rather than "irrational", but a chain of reasoning is broken by any link that isn't rational. If someone tells me there are aliens on Earth and they put implants in peoples' brains, it doesn't matter if he is a Scientologist or a schitzophrenic. He's wrong.

Similarly with "veridical" and "valid". Used of "argument", the two words are synonymous.

So why the big deal?

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: October 31st, 2009, 3:55 pm
by Sven
My understanding is that the problem wasn't that Anscombe proved Lewis wrong, it's that she proved he argued poorly. So much so that Lewis, who quite properly esteemed himself as a debater, felt he had let the side down by making such a sloppy argument.

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: October 31st, 2009, 4:09 pm
by agingjb
I wouldn't have said that to hold any false belief is necessarily irrational. That would imply that where there is any dispute over facts, then one of the proponents is irrational (or both are).

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 2nd, 2009, 6:38 pm
by mgton
By the way, Victor Reppert defends an argument that is basically the same as Lewis' in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you're interested in lewis' argument I would definitely check it out.

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 4th, 2009, 1:42 am
by archenland_knight
These two links contain interesting perspectives on Anscombe's exchange with Lewis.




Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 4th, 2009, 7:01 pm
by larry gilman

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 4th, 2009, 9:43 pm
by Mr Bultitude
Larry I appreciate your analysis of the formal logic involved in both of these arguments. It's kind of a new interest of mine, and when I'm not on my blackberry I plan on downloading Anscombe's response and having a look.

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 5th, 2009, 3:53 pm
by larry gilman
Here is a fairly complete Reader on the CSL/Anscombe imbroglio. It contains (in this order) George Sayers's account of the incident, Lewis's 1947 chapter in Miracles, Anscombe's response, and Lewis's 1960 revision of the Miracles chapter:

[link removed: see my next post, below]

Hope this is of use,

Larry

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 5th, 2009, 8:40 pm
by Sven
Larry, if you don't have the appropriate permissions from the Lewis estate and Sayer's agent, you're going to have to remove that link.

Re: Anscombe's criticisms just nitpicking?

PostPosted: November 5th, 2009, 8:59 pm
by larry gilman
I have little regard for Disney-engineered copyright laws that enable immortal corporations to batten indefinitely on the writings of dead people while restricting the right of live humans to read, learn, and enjoy, but I understand that a website such as this must observe the legalities.

Thus:

Anybody who e-mails me at lnpgilman [ a t ] wildblue [ d o t ] net will receive a free, directly shared, non-publicly-available copy of the abovementioned PDF document for personal use in accordance with Title 17 of the US code, which states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright" (). I assert that my provision of the abovementioned excerpts to specific individuals who have expressed their desire to learn about the C.S.Lewis/Anscombe debate falls under the rubrics of teaching, scholarship, and research. If CSL Pte. Ltd. and the University of Minnesota want to sue me, then, that's my lookout.