[FOM] Contrasting methodologies

[Harvey Friedman]

Reply to Chow.

On 9/30/03 10:51 AM, "Timothy Y. Chow" <tchow at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum argument.  It's supposed to show
> that if skepticism about the determinate character of N is justified,
> then skepticism about rules is justified.

What methodological principle are you using to draw this if-then inference?

The real point of my posting of 9/29/03 8:23PM was to reveal my reservations
about the normal methodology in philosophy, and contrast it with normal
methodology in f.o.m.

You seem open to this latter methodology, when you wrote

>... This question drives at something close to your suggestion: "It
> seems rather subtle to set up the foundations of simple-rule-following, so
> that it satisfies certain criteria of clarity and self containment."
> 
And you see the contrast in methodologies when you quoted me with

>> Wittgenstein never did, to my knowledge [set up such criteria].  I have never
>>seen such criteria
>> laid out properly by anyone.

and said
 
> I agree.  

Harvey Friedman