Page 39 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 39
fallacies: do we ‘use’ them or ‘commit’ them? ...
of a vast array of terms, which overlap with those that we use in
the appraisal of performatives. In real life, as opposed to the simple
situations envisaged in logical theory, one cannot always answer in
a simple manner whether it is true or false.2 (Austin ibid.: 142–43)
What is true and what is false?
Truth and falsity therefore don’t have objective criteria, but depend on
‘good reasons and good evidence’ we have for stating something. And even
then, we assess constatives employing ‘a vast array of terms’, which should
be understood as ‘not just whether they correspond to facts or not’. And
Austin’s conclusion concurs with Hamblin’s (as we will see later): it is easy
to say what is true or false in logic, it is much more complicated and less ev-
ident in everyday life and everyday language use.
Here are Austin’ arguments for this ‘relativization’:
Suppose that we confront ‘France is hexagonal’ with the facts, in
this case, I suppose, with France, is it true or false? Well, if you
like, up to a point; of course I can see what you mean by saying
that it is true for certain intents and purposes. It is good enough
for a top-ranking general, perhaps, but not for a geographer.
‘Naturally it is pretty rough’, we should say, ‘and pretty good as
a pretty rough statement’. But then someone says: ‘But is it true
or is it false? I don’t mind whether it is rough or not; of course
it’s rough, but it has to be true or false, it’s a statement, isn’t it?’
How can one answer this question, whether it is true or false that
France is hexagonal? It is just rough, and that is the right and fi-
nal answer to the question of the relation of ‘France is hexagonal’
to France. It is a rough description; it is not a true or a false one.
(Austin ibid.: 143)
True, false or (just) rough
Statements/utterances can therefore not just be either true or false, there is
(or at least should be) a gradation between what is false and what is true, be-
tween 0 and 1. What we say can be more or less true, true up to a (certain)
point, or more precisely: true for certain intents and purposes. As ‘France is
hexagonal’ is a rough description, so are ‘France is a country of good wines’,
or ‘France is a cheese country’, for example. But these utterances are not
2 All emphases throughout the text are mine—IŽŽ.
39
of a vast array of terms, which overlap with those that we use in
the appraisal of performatives. In real life, as opposed to the simple
situations envisaged in logical theory, one cannot always answer in
a simple manner whether it is true or false.2 (Austin ibid.: 142–43)
What is true and what is false?
Truth and falsity therefore don’t have objective criteria, but depend on
‘good reasons and good evidence’ we have for stating something. And even
then, we assess constatives employing ‘a vast array of terms’, which should
be understood as ‘not just whether they correspond to facts or not’. And
Austin’s conclusion concurs with Hamblin’s (as we will see later): it is easy
to say what is true or false in logic, it is much more complicated and less ev-
ident in everyday life and everyday language use.
Here are Austin’ arguments for this ‘relativization’:
Suppose that we confront ‘France is hexagonal’ with the facts, in
this case, I suppose, with France, is it true or false? Well, if you
like, up to a point; of course I can see what you mean by saying
that it is true for certain intents and purposes. It is good enough
for a top-ranking general, perhaps, but not for a geographer.
‘Naturally it is pretty rough’, we should say, ‘and pretty good as
a pretty rough statement’. But then someone says: ‘But is it true
or is it false? I don’t mind whether it is rough or not; of course
it’s rough, but it has to be true or false, it’s a statement, isn’t it?’
How can one answer this question, whether it is true or false that
France is hexagonal? It is just rough, and that is the right and fi-
nal answer to the question of the relation of ‘France is hexagonal’
to France. It is a rough description; it is not a true or a false one.
(Austin ibid.: 143)
True, false or (just) rough
Statements/utterances can therefore not just be either true or false, there is
(or at least should be) a gradation between what is false and what is true, be-
tween 0 and 1. What we say can be more or less true, true up to a (certain)
point, or more precisely: true for certain intents and purposes. As ‘France is
hexagonal’ is a rough description, so are ‘France is a country of good wines’,
or ‘France is a cheese country’, for example. But these utterances are not
2 All emphases throughout the text are mine—IŽŽ.
39
