Are all models wrong?

[uwot]

There's nothing in the text "I know my wife" - they are just symbols on a screen. They contain no inherent information.

Apart from all the "common sense" that according to yourself doesn't even need saying.

I use the word "cat" because my intention is to get you to hallucinate (read: imagine, picture) a furry, purry domesticated feline, ergo, I predict that when I say 'cat' you will hallucinate a furry, purry domesticated feline.

Fair enough. So does the word 'wife' provoke no hallucinations in you?

...is the language of "necessity and sufficiency" not even relevant?

No.

[Skepdick]

Apart from all the "common sense" that according to yourself doesn't even need saying.

Exactly.

You found the need to say something that doesn't need saying.

Tell me about your need. That is what I call "intent". Why are you telling me this?

Fair enough. So does the word 'wife' provoke no hallucinations in you?

The word "wife" invokes hallucinations.
The sentence "I know my wife" may or may not trigger the hallucinations you expect it to trigger.

But if you were to utter the word "Wife" out of the blue it would be as incoherent to me as if you were to utter the phrase "I know my wife" out of the blue.

Because I can't infer your intent! And I can't infer why you aren't bothering to check if the phrase "I know my wife" triggered the hallucinations you intended it to trigger.

No.

So I'll restate my understanding (or confusion) about the relevance/irrelevance of sufficiency and necessity like this....

for ALL X in {birthday, background and history, likes and dislikes, interests, hobbies, work situation, physical features}:
knowing your wife's X is neither necessary nor sufficient for knowing your wife

If the above is true, then I am struggling to understand what you are saying.

Of course, the choice to conclude that you are toying with my charity is always on the table.

[uwot]

...if you were to utter the word "Wife" out of the blue it would be as incoherent to me as if you were to utter the phrase "I know my wife" out of the blue.

I dare say, but neither PH nor I have said 'I know my wife' out of the blue.

...I can't infer why you aren't bothering to check if the phrase "I know my wife" triggered the hallucinations you intended it to trigger.

Given that nobody has said it out of the blue, it would be a waste of time.

...I am struggling to understand what you are saying.

That knowing another person does not demand that you know everything about them. Were that so, nobody knows anyone.

Of course, the choice to conclude that you are toying with my charity is always on the table.

Well yeah, that's a possibility we all have to confront.

[Skepdick]

I dare say, but neither PH nor I have said 'I know my wife' out of the blue.

Dare I say it, but it's for the recipient of the sentence to decide that.

Given that nobody has said it out of the blue, it would be a waste of time.

You've wasted more time avoiding paraphrasing (and justifying it) than it would've taken you to paraphrase.

That knowing another person does not demand that you know everything about them.Were that so, nobody knows anyone.

Well, that's woefully one-sided.

It's also pertinently clear that knowing another person does demand knowing something more than their name, birthday, background, physical attributes, interests and work situation (since you knew just about all of those things about Karl Popper). Were that so, everybody knows almost everyone.

For you can find all of that "knowledge" about a person on social media.

Well yeah, that's a possibility we all have to confront.

Since you are the only person who has that information, I think it's easier to just ask you... Are you toying with my charity?

[attofishpi]

This model is never wrong...even when she is wrong she is right. (Donnie Brasko)

[uwot]

I dare say, but neither PH nor I have said 'I know my wife' out of the blue.

Dare I say it, but it's for the recipient of the sentence to decide that.

Well, that's woefully one-sided. So what is your decision? Has anyone said 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

Given that nobody has said it out of the blue, it would be a waste of time.

You've wasted more time avoiding paraphrasing (and justifying it) than it would've taken you to paraphrase.

I really don't feel obliged to justify anything that, according to my decision, hasn't been said out of the blue.

That knowing another person does not demand that you know everything about them.Were that so, nobody knows anyone.

Well, that's woefully one-sided.

It's also pertinently clear that knowing another person does demand knowing something more than their name, birthday, background, physical attributes, interests and work situation (since you knew just about all of those things about Karl Popper). Were that so, everybody knows almost everyone.

For you can find all of that "knowledge" about a person on social media.

True, but that brings us back to context. As PH said:

...we use the word know and its cognates perfectly clearly in many different contexts, and that if required we can explain what we mean in different ways.

You know; 'know about', 'know socially', stuff like that.

Since you are the only person who has that information, I think it's easier to just ask you... Are you toying with my charity?

Dare I say it, but it's for the recipient of the sentence to decide that.

[Skepdick]

Well, that's woefully one-sided. So what is your decision? Has anyone said 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

it appears that way to me. Which is why I asked for context/paraphrasing.

I really don't feel obliged to justify anything that, according to my decision, hasn't been said out of the blue.

Obviously. You aren't obliged to do anything. You aren't even obliged to say things. And yet you said whatever you said for whatever reason.

I figure paraphrasing your words so as to maximise clarity for your interlocutors might align with your reason for saying whatever it is you are saying in the first place.

Unless you are just saying things for nobody else's benefit but your own, in which case - carry on.

True, but that brings us back to context. As PH said:

...we use the word know and its cognates perfectly clearly in many different contexts, and that if required we can explain what we mean in different ways.

You know; 'know about', 'know socially', stuff like that.

It was a poor contextualisation lacking particulars. Coincidentally, this criticism on the distinction between continental/analytic philosophy seems apt...

Philosophy needs insight as well as clear argument, the universal as well as the particular. No-one should wish for philosophy to be 'healed' into one unified approach, but we would certainly benefit from trying a bit harder to understand each other, at least sometimes.

Dare I say it, but it's for the recipient of the sentence to decide that.

This response suggests a rather flawed conception of how reliable communication works (a fundamental problem in Information Theory as it happens to be).

It's impossible for the recipient to decide that since the information required for answering the question was never transmitted by the sender.

If the sender insists on withholding the information required for answering the question "Is uwot toying with Skepdick's charity?" the recipient could just flip a coin.

Heads -> Yes.
Tails -> No.

I would move on with my life knowing that I don't know the actual answer, but the obscurantism demonstrated by uwot would greatly influence SKepdick's review of uwot's book.

[uwot]

Well, that's woefully one-sided. So what is your decision? Has anyone said 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

it appears that way to me. Which is why I asked for context/paraphrasing.

Well, it appears to me that even you accept it never actually happened:

Here is a tought experiment. You and Peter bump into each other on the street. The first thing he says to you is "I know my wife".

Still, if you can point to where 'I know my wife' really was said out of the blue, then perhaps PH or myself can provide some context and maybe even paraphrase.

It was a poor contextualisation lacking particulars.

But you agreed that there are particulars that don't need saying.

Those facts, I suspect, would include knowing her birthday, some of her background and history, some of her likes and dislikes, interests, hobbies, work situation, some physical features; the sort of information that even a moderately successful relationship is dependent on.

This is common sense - you aren't saying anything that needs saying.

So, to use your thought experiment, should PH bump into me on the street and apropos of nothing say 'I know my wife', I might consider his sanity, but I would assume that he knows some of those, or similar facts; and while his saying it might be incomprehensible (to use a different but contextually appropriate meaning), the sentence itself would make perfect, if slightly odd sense.

I would move on with my life knowing that I don't know the actual answer, but the obscurantism demonstrated by uwot would greatly influence SKepdick's review of uwot's book.

I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect making what appears to be a threat publicly probably isn't a good idea. Still, if you have any valid criticism, I should be happy to hear it.

[Skepdick]

Well, it appears to me that even you accept it never actually happened

Who gets to decide whether it happened or not?

If you are uncertain as to my (dis?)agreement on a particular issue you are welcome to ask me a direct question.

Still, if you can point to where 'I know my wife' really was said out of the blue, then perhaps PH or myself can provide some context and maybe even paraphrase.

Sure! I'll make it really easy for you.

Just look for all the instances where I asked: "Could you use this sentence as part of an actual conversation?" and "Could you paraphrase it?".

So, to use your thought experiment, should PH bump into me on the street and apropos of nothing say 'I know my wife', I might consider his sanity, but I would assume that he knows some of those, or similar facts; and while his saying it might be incomprehensible (to use a different but contextually appropriate meaning), the sentence itself would make perfect, if slightly odd sense.

And if that scenario were to play out your primary concern is linguistic/semantic? Your analysis focuses on the sentence and not on the person saying it?

Of all the things that Peter could've said that don't need saying (The sky is blue. It's winter. The Earth is round. The capital of France is Paris) he chose that particular sentence.

The question of WHY Peter might say something that doesn't need saying doesn't even cross your mind?

Wonder how you would react if he told you that he knows your wife.

I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect making what appears to be a threat publicly probably isn't a good idea.

Reviewing a book I paid for is a threat now? Heh!

Getting negative feedback from our customers is "possibility we all have to confront."

Let me know if your lawyer wants to talk to my lawyer.

Still, if you have any valid criticism, I should be happy to hear it.

Who decides if it's 'valid"?

[uwot]

Well, it appears to me that even you accept it never actually happened

Who gets to decide whether it happened or not?

If you are uncertain as to my (dis?)agreement on a particular issue you are welcome to ask me a direct question.

Okie-dokie. Where did Peter Holmes say 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

Still, if you can point to where 'I know my wife' really was said out of the blue, then perhaps PH or myself can provide some context and maybe even paraphrase.

Sure! I'll make it really easy for you.

Just look for all the instances where I asked: "Could you use this sentence as part of an actual conversation?" and "Could you paraphrase it?".

None of which are PH saying 'I know my wife' out of the blue.

Of all the things that Peter could've said that don't need saying (The sky is blue. It's winter. The Earth is round. The capital of France is Paris) he chose that particular sentence.

Out of the blue? Where?

The question of WHY Peter might say something that doesn't need saying doesn't even cross your mind?

It may well do if he ever actually says it out of the blue.

Wonder how you would react if he told you that he knows your wife.

Well Skepdick, that would depend on the context.

Let me know if your lawyer wants to talk to my lawyer.

I find it hard to believe that you retain a lawyer on the off chance that you write a stinky review.

[attofishpi]

This conversation is hilarious..

& This bloke knows Peter Holmes wife..

[Skepdick]

Well, it appears to me that even you accept it never actually happened

Who gets to decide whether it happened or not?

If you are uncertain as to my (dis?)agreement on a particular issue you are welcome to ask me a direct question.

Okie-dokie. Where did Peter Holmes say 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

Still, if you can point to where 'I know my wife' really was said out of the blue, then perhaps PH or myself can provide some context and maybe even paraphrase.

Sure! I'll make it really easy for you.

Just look for all the instances where I asked: "Could you use this sentence as part of an actual conversation?" and "Could you paraphrase it?".

None of which are PH saying 'I know my wife' out of the blue.

Of all the things that Peter could've said that don't need saying (The sky is blue. It's winter. The Earth is round. The capital of France is Paris) he chose that particular sentence.

Out of the blue? Where?

The question of WHY Peter might say something that doesn't need saying doesn't even cross your mind?

It may well do if he ever actually says it out of the blue.

Wonder how you would react if he told you that he knows your wife.

Well Skepdick, that would depend on the context.

Would this be a good time to point out you dodging my "Are you toying with my charity?" yes/no question?

Let me know if your lawyer wants to talk to my lawyer.

I find it hard to believe that you retain a lawyer on the off chance that you write a stinky review.

Obviously that isn't why I retain my lawyer. Do you retain a lawyer on the off-chance you want to legally intimidate people who write you a stinky reviews?

[uwot]

Would this be a good time to point out you dodging my "Are you toying with my charity?" yes/no question?

No. Where did Peter Holmes say 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

[Skepdick]

Would this be a good time to point out you dodging my "Are you toying with my charity?" yes/no question?

No. Where did Peter Holmes say 'I know my wife' out of the blue?

OK. Le me try and explain my meaning, the way I see it and why I assert his sentence was non-contextual (e.g out of the blue).
Philosophy is a game. One need not believe the arguments one makes, but one needs to pretend they believe them - it's role-playing.

Peter's OP and opening argument are narrated from his Philosophical (3rd person?) position. He uses a formal register to set the scene as objectively as he knows how. This is done "out of character" - it's a monologue.

He then enters the "role playing" stage of the argument, where he assumes the role he created for himself and plays the part necessary to defend (demonstrate?) his argument in practice. This stage requires dialogue.

Peter gets "in character" (1st person? enters the scene?) like so...

All that we know of the world is a model of the world. To deny that is IMO to be a non-philosopher.

I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on. These are real things that I know. They are not models (descriptions) of the world. They are features of reality that I know, given the way we use the word know. The claim that they are merely models is an absurd affectation.

The above sentence is "out of the blue" because it's the very first thing Peter is uttering as he enters the scene.

There is zero prior context in THIS register, and to use his OP as "context" is to "cheat" at the role-playing game because in a normal (real-world) scenario his philosophical position would be private knowledge not available to me or you.

"The way we use words" (if there is such a thing) is colloquially and informally (e.g NOT in the register in which Peter is speaking while making or defending his arguments).

Hence why I asked: Can you use that sentence in a real-world (read: NON-PHILOSOPHICAL) conversation/context?

The context that may or may not exist in the OP is contrived.

And if by saying "given the way we use the word know.", Peter wanted us to understand "WE Philosophers", and not "WE humans" - then I will gladly get out of the way. Because no human uses the word "know" to construct the phrase "I know my wife...". Google confirms my instinct - that saying what Peter is saying is not a normal thing to say; and in so far as you think that it's an "odd thing to say" - I think we are on the same page.

[Peter Holmes]

Hence why I asked: Can you use that sentence in a real-world (read: NON-PHILOSOPHICAL) conversation/context?

The context that may or may not exist in the OP is contrived.

1 If there were no context for the expression 'I know my wife', then it couldn't be contrived. Falling over backwards to maintain your ridiculous line of argument, you're dribbling drivel. But, of course, there is a context for the expression.

2 I was showing examples of the ways we can use the word 'know', and 'I know my wife' was one of them. 'I know my hometown' was another one. Why didn't you challenge the context or register-appropriate nature of that locution? If, as you claim, I was acting the Philosopher, then why was that use of the word 'know' uncontroversial? Or do you intend to fabricate some absurd argument about the context-less meaninglessness of 'I know my hometown'?

3 Your appeal to linguistic 'register' is so much flammery. As you well know, in linguistics things are rarely clear-cut, so 'philosophy-speak' is not always and everywhere different from 'everyday-speak'. There's blurring and overlapping everywhere.

... no human uses the word "know" to construct the phrase "I know my wife...". Google confirms my instinct - that saying what Peter is saying is not a normal thing to say.

Wtf are you on about? Google has nothing to say about 'I know my wife' - so the expression doesn't exist? Are you serious? Or for real? What actual evidence do you have for the claim that no one has ever said or would ever say 'I know my wife'? In all our long and tedious arguments, this is possibly the most fantastically stupid thing you've ever said.

Investigator: Hello, Mr Holmes. My name's Dick Skep. But call me Dick. Everyone else does. Now, here's a video of the crowd outside the lecture theatre - they're waiting for the talk on uses of the word 'know'. Please can you tell me who you know in the crowd?

Holmes: Well, I know Dirk Dangerous. We met the other day. And I know that woman - she's Jean Jeanie. Er. I know my wife - of course ...

Investigator: Hold on, Mr Holmes. What do you mean by 'I know my wife'? Literally no human has ever said or could ever say that sentence in any context whatsoever. You just can't say it.

Holmes: Don't be a dick, Dick. You wanted to know who I know in the video - and my wife is one of the people I know. Get a grip.