This page is for discussing the contents of Hume, scepticism and reason.
Comments:
2010-05-16 21:37:23 I've started this page off, and I'm hoping Paul will join us with some feedback soon. —docmartin
2010-05-17 23:19:54 Thanks for the additions, Proof - but I'm getting a bit lost with this. Can you remove bits (queries iusually made in [...]) once they have been dealt with, so we can see what is left to do? I think we need the quote and a few other bits still? —docmartin
2010-05-19 10:52:55 Some silly errors were corrected, but do the alterations help to improve its style and clarity; making it more accessible to a wider audiance? —Proof
2010-05-19 11:19:47 Hi Proof,
Can we modify the style to remove the first person?
eg here:
What, of Hume the philosopher, as someone who could not comprehend the meaning of concepts? To be fair, if he hadn't exposed the problem of their use, I do not think Kant and then Hegel would have contributed to resolving it
we could say:
What, of Hume the philosopher, as someone who could not comprehend the meaning of concepts? To be fair, if he hadn't exposed the problem of their use, it is unlikely that Kant and then Hegel would have contributed to resolving it —docmartin
2010-05-19 11:21:02 I'm going nt print this out later today - to give it a better check over - okay? —docmartin
2010-05-20 10:31:34 That is fine, as help with the style and grammar is as appreciated as any comments on the content. —Proof
2010-05-20 20:14:24 Okay, still need to get a proper look. —docmartin
2010-05-21 12:19:10 Some more changes have been made, which I hope are taken into consideration. Also, though I forgot to login, I noticed they were
still uploaded. So is there something wrong with the login, or is it not
not really necessary? —82.44.65.70
There are 'privileges' if you log in.. and it is certainly eaiser to follow changes when you can follow the contributors by name. But no, it is perfectly possible - wikipedia style- do editi anonymously! - DM
2010-05-21 18:35:56 Like a painting that is coming into focus, each time I come back to it, I find myself wanting to make changes as if it can't be finished,
which is quite frustrating. —Proof
That's writing, innit. I've made a few small copy edits. But here's a few lines I'd like you to look at. But remember, keep the length down, more words is not better!
' There are reasons for their lack or gain of knowledge that inspires their confidence. '
'Having a chance provides a reason. For why should one custom, or all them for doing races be a reason for any other? What is possible can be limited by a belief that places conditions which do not conform with experience - like cars running with broken cam shafts.'
This is a key line:
'Hume fails to see the contradiction of putting chance before the reasons'
- but surely 'contradiction' is not quite the right word...
This line:
'Certainly, Copernicus' measurements proved that Ptolemy's theory where the Earth was assumed to be at the centre of the solar system was false, so why should this not be so for one based on what is true for the limits of understandings about chance being better than one based on hypothesis requiring suppositions?'
raises a whole lot of issues about method - [have a look here!]
eg. "Copernicus himself admits (in Commentariolus) that the Ptolomaic theory is ‘consistent with the numerical data’.” [footnote, page 88]"
As I mentoned, I think this works better (especailly here on the WIki - but also I am thinking of as a philosphical essay) if we remove the personal touches, eg the reference to your grandfather - no disrespect okay!
The last few lines ae not qute as clear as they might be either. Could you see a way to (just slightly) simplify the construction?
'because judgements like Hume's, have been absorbed into our folk psychology. Of course there are degrees of opinion, and not everyone takes a sceptical position as extreme as Hume's, but the potential is there, as long as it is considered reasonable to deny that the relation of good to evil is a moral judgement that affects the relation of choices to the chance of their outcomes. If it is correct that the limits of our understanding about chance do affect our future, so this attitude should be challenged. While Hume's attack on reason could be said to have had a profound influence on scientific attitudes, there is I think enough evidence to re-evaluate its effect on our philosophical conscience if change is really desired.'
—Docmartin
2010-05-22 17:10:43 I have had a go at addressing the points you raised; I hope the changes have helped. —Proof
2010-05-22 17:37:55 Greetings!
a suggestion: Perhaps some titles for your sections? —PerigGouanvic
2010-05-24 00:32:30 Thank you for the suggestion. I put some titles in; see double inverted commas, but in doing so,
I hope the sections are relevant and not too muddled. —Proof
2010-05-24 04:00:44 I enlarged the font of these sub-sections. Do you like the result? —PerigGouanvic
2010-05-24 10:58:24 The enlarged font for the sub-sections definately works better. Thank you. —Proof
2010-05-24 21:09:01 Okay! Yes, the sub-headings are useful. I'll just read through this version for the purposes of the Journal (will return with some small edits no doubt) - but keep improving the page by all means! —docmartin
2010-05-24 23:34:36 Thank you. I have made a few more changes, but am a bit nervous about the balance between getting the article to work as a whole and
making the detail accessible. —Proof
2010-05-25 08:49:55 I have just made an important change to the end of the sub-section "Probabilities as measures of chance" that has
a small effect on the beginning of the next sub-section. —Proof
2010-05-27 11:27:41 A little more was added to the end of the sub-section "Probabilities as Measures of Chance" which I hope will nail it.
There is also another quote from Hume, which I think reinforces
my position in the introduction, but perhaps it is not necessary? —Proof
2010-05-28 21:35:01 Mmmm... it's getting a bit lnog-winded innit? I mean, one could do a separate essay on probabiliies, and it would 'probably' not be very interesting! —docmartin
2010-05-29 22:16:26 I agree and will cut out the section on probabilities. —Proof
2010-06-01 20:23:57 Radical! Okay, let's go with this version. I'm still behind on the line by line check, let me get back with some thoughts in a day or so. —docmartin
2010-06-03 22:04:20 Actually, Proof, I've been through the article now, and it needs a pretty radical edit 'in general'! Sorry about that - no one likes to lose large amounts of text. But there are a tleast three different themes here, and they're not mixing well - IMO. ANyway, it will be tomorrow to type it up and post the new version here for your okay, hopefully. —docmartin
2010-06-04 12:02:17 Here's the version I would like to go ahead with. But waiting for your okay. It may have misrepresented your thesis, please check! But surely word-length strayed up way too high - articles really have to be 'disciplined' - so let's not add much to this version, except to correct? —docmartin
2010-06-04 12:06:09 ps
don't forget you can easily see all the changes (and retrive beloved text - but not for this paper, I think - by using the 'info' facility... —docmartin
2010-06-06 23:28:21 I changed the last two sentences of the second paragraph; just to make clearer the opposition, if that is fine.
It will take longer to get a feel for the whole article;
to see if it can be improved, if in fact I can do so.
—82.44.65.70
2010-06-07 12:58:02 Look, we need to finalise this ideally today, certainly tomorrow! That small change - added in a grammatical error!
"Both claims, cannot be true by his reasoning."
It's the comma, innit? But this sort of thing can really upset an article. So be careful when you try to 'clarify'. Please only make those essential corrections now - I have to do a lot of other 'bits and pieces' too all by Wednesday, so what I'm really hoping for is just 'proof checking' - Proof!
2010-06-07 13:22:53 Actually, I'm not sure we need a comma at all, looking at this again?
Yet Hume insists that it doesn't. But both claims cannot be true by his reasoning. —docmartin
2010-06-07 20:53:06 Just to confirm, we'll take this text then for the Philosopher - minor changes still possible tho for a day or two. —docmartin
2010-06-08 23:05:58 After some thought I deleted "Both claims, cannot be true by his reasoning.", as I think it just confuses the point; by adding to it unecessarily.
The comma was put in to be a space, like substituting a comma for 'then'
as in 'if it is raining, I will take my umbrella.'
2010-06-09 09:35:28 Okay, thanks Proof. Noted. —docmartin
