0
Sextus Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
Doubt about Syntax
"Bett makes an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical (in the negative dogmatic sense) about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about any other area."
Do you think that the syntax of this sentence is clear?
Sextus
Do you think that the syntax of this sentence is clear?
Sextus
Top answer
No.
- No.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
Well, it ain't harmonious, Sextus, but I think it's meaning can be figured out by following the sytax.
00
Perhaps it is better like this?
"Bett makes an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical (in the negative dogmatic sense) about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that one need not be non-skeptical about any other area."
Sextus
"Bett makes an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical (in the negative dogmatic sense) about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that one need not be non-skeptical about any other area."
Sextus
00
Sextus,
I don't claim to know the material you are working with; is Bett making his inference from a fact, or a statement of fact? If he's making an invalid inference from a statement, I think it's better to repeat the whole statement with the change of every to any.
If you want it shorter, to deal with your syntax issue, you might as well go minimal and say that B
I don't claim to know the material you are working with; is Bett making his inference from a fact, or a statement of fact? If he's making an invalid inference from a statement, I think it's better to repeat the whole statement with the change of every to any.
If you want it shorter, to deal with your syntax issue, you might as well go minimal and say that B
00
No, it's not a statement, it's a fact. Yeah, I think that perhaps my point is more strongly made if I repeat the phrase. Also, I eliminated the parenthesis, so as to make it less complex.
"Bett makes an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about moral
"Bett makes an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about moral
00
Perhaps because I lack context, the more I think of it, the less I get it, Sextus.
It's the double negative that's throwing me off: 'need not be non-skeptical'. If I am not non-skeptical, am I then skeptical?
Forget the invalid inference for a moment, and, if you don't mind, state the factual part for me, without the double negative.
It's the double negative that's throwing me off: 'need not be non-skeptical'. If I am not non-skeptical, am I then skeptical?
Forget the invalid inference for a moment, and, if you don't mind, state the factual part for me, without the double negative.
00
What I mean is something like this: "if one wants to doubt A, one does not have to be certain about B and C and D, etc., (=every other area) but one does have to be certain either about B, or C, or D, or etc.(=some other area)". The person I'm talking about also denies the second part of the sentence. That is, he says that "one does not have to be certain about B and C and D" and that "one does n
00
So, 'need not be non-skeptical' = 'need not be certain'.
I think that's the way I originally must have read it, (before I started second-guessing everything). Thank you for the clarification, Sextus.
(I don't, by the way, presume to stand in for the faithful MrP.)
I think that's the way I originally must have read it, (before I started second-guessing everything). Thank you for the clarification, Sextus.
(I don't, by the way, presume to stand in for the faithful MrP.)
0
Related Questions