Conundrums – Riffing in memory of a friend

Recap

Last time I presented the last of the material on ordinary language and logic as a series of questions. This was meant as a way into further discussions of other topics. Thanks to all who participated, however silently in some cases. The attentive (and knowledgeable) of you may have noticed that I addressed what are called de Morgan’s laws in two distinct columns. This was on purpose: one’s views of these is subject to one’s views of three of the connectives we studied, at least. Note that there are logics which deny one direction or other of the “or to and” equivalences familiar from classical logic. Those who wish to study this in particular can look up “intuitionistic logic”.

One of these further topics, as mentioned, is the current hype about artificial intelligence.

Riffing on a Topic of Polybius

As also promised, I would like to take this opportunity to remember my good friend, Kevin Brown. I’ll start with a passage from the historian Polybius, using it to address themes and aspects of my friendship (which are also important themes for many readers). No direct puzzles will be raised, but all of the topics are deep and challenging – I hope! We will see common interests, divergences, shared worries and more. Let us begin by considering this (emphasis added):

“Some who have written about the history of Hannibal, wishing to indicate to us the reasons why the aforementioned war between the Romans and the Carthaginians occurred, declare that the first reason to be the siege of Saguntum by the Carthaginians, and the second, their crossing, contrary to the treaty, of the river that the natives call Ebro. I would say that these were the beginnings of the war, but in no way would I agree that they were the causes. Far from it – unless someone will say that the crossing of Alexander into Asia was the cause of his war against Persia, or the arrival of Antiochus at Demitrias was the cause of his war against the Romans: but neither of these is probable or true.”

First: the title of the section of the Conundrums this month includes “riffing”. Borrowed from music, extended discussions or “riffs” in a conversational sense were a great interest of both Kevin and me. Next, we would likely encounter some questions he would ask Socratically: who is this guy anyway? Where are you reading this from? Kevin and I approached these matters from two related but distinct traditions. Kevin studied classics, which traditionally includes ancient (Greek and Roman) philosophy. (I also studied ancient philosophy, as part of my general philosophy education.)

Kevin would, as mentioned, ask the reader to consider when Polybius is writing, and in what language – as I am of course reading an English translation. The latter can be determined to be from quite recently – 2017. This too he would draw attention to – older scholarship sometimes includes mistranslations or even – as he pointed out from time to time – fraud and censorship. Bowdlerization was real. So, we learn (as I did – I had to look it up) that Polybius was a Hellenistic period Roman historian who nevertheless wrote in Greek. (No doubt Kevin would have done that from memory).

All of this concern about language and dates  is important and related to a topic we discussed from time to time – metadata. Metadata is data about data, and what one can do with it is an important topic for another time.

Returning then to the text. I bolded several uses of “cause” and “reason”. In Greek, as Kevin would remind us, “aition” (which I am guessing the original has) is ambiguous. The term can mean “cause”, “reason”, or “explanation”. The famous “four causes” of Aristotle are four aitia, for example. So which does Polybius mean in each case? I would remind us that there is a debate in philosophy on whether reasons are causes. I agree that there is a species to genus relationship here, but it is important to realize that this is somewhat contentious. Those who are looking forward to more AI stuff may wish to contemplate that question – it is relevant! 

Causation in general is a topic that CFI in general and Kevin and I in particular talked about from time to time. One part of this giant topic is one special case of one topic I mentioned earlier. Some would reason as follows: in order to understand causation, one needs generalizations, and in order to get appropriate generalizations, one needs laws or similar. Yet history does not give us these; “every situation is unique”. This sort of consideration is why some oppose labelling history a science. Kevin was very fond of drawing distinctions and looking for counterexamples – a skill we should all develop, I dare say. (Yes, that itself is a generalization. Does it matter – as Kevin would have reminded us – that it is an imperative, not a propositional sentence?) 

Kevin knew that although one can metaphysically disagree with someone, one does not always have to practically disagree. He told fondly of how he, a secular person through and through, collaborated with others of various religions at his workplace to ensure that the work got done yet various religious holidays and observances were honoured. He seemed very proud of this.

As we come to the end of the passage I quoted, we find an italicized “probable”. This is another place where Kevin and I might have raised a few eyebrows. Sloppily, I do sometimes use the word this way. But should we? Polybius opposes it to “true”, which is interesting. Kevin and I both recognized the importance of truth, but knew (like our Roman historian!) that one has to politely challenge those who claim to have it if their claims seem unsupported, or worse – as I say (in a way that Kevin instantly got when he first heard it) – antisupported.

And that ends the column for this month. Next time: I don’t know yet! Let me know in the comments if there’s an area you want me to address.