Feedback 753054

Feedback for "Charlie George responds to `All truth is relative`"

(View the rubric for this assignment in a new tab.)

You are not the first poster to respond [0] to this post.

Degree of Difficulty Multiplier: .7 Depending on how tricky I think your topic or issue is, you'll get more (or less...) credit for your post. Check out this page for more explanation.

How well has the post’s project & goal been presented?

• The focus apparently changes throughout the post. [Unacceptable; 0]

How relevant is your post to the target?

• Discusses the same general topic as the target, but is otherwise not related. [Marginal; 1]

How well did you show & share your understanding of the concept?

• Applies the concept clearly to the issue with only a few minor simplifications or inaccuracies. [Good; 2]

How well did you explore intuitions about knowledge?

• Contradictory or confusing statements about your thinking makes it difficult to see how this post affected your views [Marginal; 1]

Was the post effectively woven into the wiki with sufficient key concepts?

• No (find some more...) [0]

Was the reference source for this post correctly linked-to?

• Yes [1]

Key areas to improve, if you want to revise this:

OK, a good start Charlie. I'd like to see you start more clearly the focus of the post, and how it's going to use the concepts discussed in Price, right up front. (Right now, it's kind of wandery in that your atheism discussion isn't trying back to the Price quote.) I think you might have to explain the two claims a bit better... maybe it's mostly because you've switched them? (Read carefully what you wrote... which is 'first'?) Can you be clear, and say when you're "putting a logical value on" something, you mean a truth-value? ('Value' discussions can be easily misunderstood as 'worth' discussions.) "while I have good reason for this belief, I can not call it truth": is this not meeting Price's definition of knowledge, though? Can you discuss this using Price? (Would Price say you're being unacceptably conservative in your knowledge-claims?) I think I like your last paragraph a lot - but it seems at a tangent to the rest. Is Price saying that a 'reasonable belief' counts as knowledge even if the undiscovered evidence weighs against it? (BTW: "an exception to the supposed logical value of an objective truth" is confusing and brings up that worth/value confounding... for if we're using 'logical value' to refer to truth value, then... the logical value of an objective truth is surely "true", no?) Can you be more clear on this for me? Are you talking pragmatic value? So, overall... needs some work especially in terms of bringing together the Price stuff with the atheism stuff. And there are a few things that need more discussion to make them transparent. I think if you had a clear thesis at the start, that would help focus & contextualize your discussions. (The .7 DoD is mainly because of the basic nature of the Price quote that you're basing this on... bring in some more complicated dimensions to bring that up.) Add in some more concepts... I can see terms you use not included.

Total points earned (to date!): 3.8 This is auto-calculated... but email me if it's wrong!

You can check the 'View History' tab of this page, to see old feedback.

Privacy Advisory: this page will be deleted after the course. There will be no way for observers to access this feedback.