29 February 2008

kripkenstein's quaddition - exposition

oh kripke... or kripkenstein.. or whatever...

so here's the real deal. i have not read wittgenstein's philosophical investigations so take this entire post with a grain of salt--or a heap of it.

anyway the argument as it struck kripke goes somewhat like this:

suppose you've never performed the mathematical function "plus" with integers greater than 50. A is a teacher and YOU are B.

A: "17 plus 23 is..."
B: "40"
A: "yes! you got it! now, 58 plus 67 is..."
B [takes a bit longer. B computes in his head] "125."
A: "uh... i'm sorry. i don't think you understand. try again."
B [computes again]: "no i did it again in my head and.. well i was right. it's 125."
A: "uh... i think someone didn't teach you this right. 58 plus 67 is 5."
B: [baffled] "whaatt??"

so here's the trick. when you heard the word "plus" you thought that was a function where you combine numbers , such that

'plus (a,b)' = addition (a,b) --> 'a + b' when {x| -∞, ∞}

however, it is not logically inconsistent that "plus" really referred to the function of quaddition such that

'plus* (a,b)' = quaddition (a,b) ---> 'a+ b' when {x| -∞, 50} and '5' when {x| 50, ∞}

now, it's important to note that this skeptic who is proposing this skeptical scenario is not being a skeptic about the concept of addition. he's not saying that the concept of addition is vague in any way. he's just saying that it's not logically inconsistent to propose that it may be the case that whenever we use the word "addition" or the mathematical symbol of "+" we might be talking about quaddition instead of addition.

this skepticism, however, is not just an epistemological skepticism about whether we know we're adding or quadding, but it extends to a metaphysical skepticism about our own use of concepts. we can think we know what concept we're using but we could be mistaken.

i'm interested to see how or if kripke attempts to solve this...

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Hey David,

I noticed that you linked to my site while browsing my stats - thanks dude!

I've got a philosophy-only blog I have at philosophy.youropinioniswrong.com, which might make more sense for your blog.

Regarding your post, allow me to bash you over the head with some wittgenstein. Read PI dammit! It's amazing! Mind-blowing! Philosophy-ending!

To continue the Wittgenstein hammering, I think he's really relevant to the problem put forth by Kripke here.

Some questions:

-what are the implications of when we are mistaken about concepts in this manner?

Since employment of the two different concepts in the same linguistic instance results in the same answer, what is the fundamental difference between employing the two? Is the answer yielded actually the "same"?

-How does this differ from other forms of skeptical possibility, if at all? Does this generate a sort of skeptical problem similar to the Cartesian one?

The reason I ask is that I feel that the Cartesian case and its offshoots have been successfully refuted, in the sense that they have been proven pointless.

Let me know what you think. It's good to hear from you. If you post on this stuff a lot we could do a trackback conversation or something. :)