more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I think the Principle of Charity (maximise true beliefs) is unacceptable. The acceptable principle enjoins minimizing the attribution of inexplicable error and cannot be operated without a theory of the causation of belief for the creatures investigated.
Gist of Idea
Charity should minimize inexplicable error, rather than maximising true beliefs
Source
Gareth Evans (The Causal Theory of Names [1973], §I)
Book Ref
Evans,Gareth: 'Collected Papers' [OUP 1985], p.5
A Reaction
The normal principle of charity certainly seems on shaky ground if you think you have encountered a fairly normal tribe, when they in fact are in possession of the weirdest belief system on the entire planet.
| 9038 | We must distinguish what the speaker denotes by a name, from what the name denotes [Evans] |
| 9041 | The Causal Theory of Names is wrong, since the name 'Madagascar' actually changed denotation [Evans] |
| 5823 | The intended referent of a name needs to be the cause of the speaker's information about it [Evans] |
| 9039 | If descriptions are sufficient for reference, then I must accept a false reference if the descriptions fit [Evans] |
| 9040 | Charity should minimize inexplicable error, rather than maximising true beliefs [Evans] |
| 9043 | We use expressions 'deferentially', to conform to the use of other people [Evans] |
| 5825 | Speakers intend to refer to items that are the source of their information [Evans] |
| 5824 | How can an expression be a name, if names can change their denotation? [Evans] |
| 9042 | A private intention won't give a name a denotation; the practice needs it to be made public [Evans] |