Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

["Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tobin, George, Mervyn, all,

I'm still pretty sure I think that outside of logic, "A" and "not-A" are not equally weighted, epistemically.  I'm not sure if this is to say that negation is primary -- I don't know if I think that.  But I would want to say that the bar for soundness seems lower, somehow, for a statement like "I don't know what it is, but it sure isn't A" than for "It's A."  I think that it has to do with how, outside of logic, if you say something is "A" you actually know what it is, viz., it's A.  By contrast, if you say tht all you know is that it's not A, you've only gone a small way toward determining what it is.  I you want we could say that, outside of logic, "A" constitutes a real definition, while "not A" doesn't.  I mean, if you have a well-grounded belief that something is gold, to use our favorite example, you've know more than you do if you've got a well-grounded belief that, whatever the hell it is, it's not gold.  

I think that that is part of why, as a category, it's easier to slip it past the radar of people who balk at knowledge, as Tobin was suggesting originally. 

Should we move on soon, in the text?

r.  

_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism