Bjorn wrote in a comment to the last post, "I'm not completely sold on this concept at all. While examples have been raised, I don't find them at all valid. While my intuition tells me that sure, there are probably some ideas that cannot be communicated between specific languages, I think we need some more direct and accurate examples before I'm 100% persuaded."
Okay, what would it take for you, Bjorn, to be 100% persuaded on this particular issue? What would it take for someone else?
Bjorn, I think you have offered solid refutations of the arguments presented thus far. Do others find Bjorn's refutations successful in rebutting the arguments? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Eli- you say that intuition tells you that this concept is right, but you state that you're not completely sold on the issue.
So, for you, (or for anyone else), are you suggesting that intuition is not at the top of the 'ways of knowing' list? What IS at the top?
Magister P-I find Eli's refutation valid yet not completely defined. He mentions that he has issues with knowing and says that he needs more direct examples. But without clarifying what a 'direct example' is, no one could ever fully persuade him.
I don't find Bjorn's refutations to be successful in rebutting the arguments, nor do I find them to even be refutations.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the verb "to refute" as "to prove wrong by argument or evidence; [to] show to be false or erroneous." The comment by Bjorn that Magister P quoted in this post doesn't refute, but rather confesses that Bjorn isn't sure what he believes in in regards to language barriers. I don't find that to be a solid refutation.
Thus, I don't believe that Bjorn's "refutations" are successful in rebutting the arguments. He - in my opinion - seems to take more of a skeptical approach to the issue, rather than actually rebutting the argument. He offers "intuition" as a way of knowing, but, like Rachel suggests, it doesn't seem to be a very powerful way of knowing for him in this instance.
I personally don't find skepticism - confessing that you "don't know" or "aren't sure" about an issue - as a solid basis for the rebuttal of an argument, but rather a personal issue of doubt which is a matter of personal opinion. His position in this instance can't really be expanded on a general basis, which seems to be necessary to successfully rebut an argument like this one.
Bjorn's "refutation" doesn't really seem to be taking a side - either with Ali's position or against it - but rather seems to be somewhere in the middle, somewhere in the "gray area." He doesn't offer valid support that Ali's position is right or wrong, he just maintains that he isn't quite sure - that he doesn't quite know for certain - without properly "defining" or "clarifying" his position.
For example: If a witness at a law trial confesses that they think - but aren't COMPLETELY sure - that the defendant was the one who committed the crime, in general that statement alone can't be used to prove the guilt of the defendant, nor can it alone be used to prove his or her innocence.
After re-reading my previous comment, I realized that it came across harsher than I intended.
To clarify: I agree with Bjorn's position that we need more "direct" and "accurate" examples to be persuaded on this particular issue. However, I don't find Bjorn's "refutations" to be successful in rebutting the arguments, due to the reasons stated in my previous comment.
Post a Comment