
I follow on Twitter Agnes Callard, a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago with a lively feed. The other day she retweeted someone who had reproduced the following paragraphs, by the philosopher Jerry Fodor (pictured), with the comment, "I wish I could write like Jerry Fodor." The passage looks to me like a footnote in an actual academic paper Fodor wrote:
4I am reading, "What makes Wheaties the breakfast of champions?" as asking "What about Wheaties makes champions of (some, many, so many) Wheaties eaters?" rather than "What about Wheaties makes (some, many, so many) champions eat them?" The latter question invites the reasons that champions give for eating Wheaties; and though these may include reference to properties Wheaties have by virtue of which its eaters become champions, they need not do so. Thus, a plausible answer to the second question which is not plausibly an answer to the first might be: "They taste good."
I am uncertain which of these questions the Wheaties people have in mind when they ask "What makes Wheaties the breakfast of champions?" rhetorically, as, I believe, they are wont to do. Much of their advertising consists of publicizing statements by champions to the effect that they (the champions) do, in fact, eat Wheaties. If, as may be the case, such statements are offered as arguments for the truth of the presupposition of the question on its first reading (viz., that there is something about Wheaties that makes champions of those who eat them), then it would appear that General Mills has either misused the method of differences or committed the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.
Philosophy can be made out of anything. Or less.
With Wheaties I'm familiar, and I've now googled "Jerry Fodor," "method of differences," and "affirmation of the consequent." Fodor was a philosophy professor, or philosopher, whose specialty was "philosophy of mind," including "philosophy of language" and "cognition." I take it he was interested in questions like, "What is going on in your mind (or brain) when you are engaged in what we call 'thinking'?" Sometimes it seems like you are saying words to yourself:
Boy, I really hope the team that plays its home games in the city in which I live wins the tournament.
But that doesn't explain all "thoughts." For example, if someone asked, in something I was reading,
What does a carburetor look like?
I would "think the words"
I have no idea
but someone else, who actually knows what a carburetor looks like, would have some kind of brain activity more accurately represented by a phrase like "formed a mental image" of, in this case, a carburetor: no words, in other words, but a picture instead. These are the kinds of things, it seems, that Fodor thought about, including while reading the panel of a Wheaties box at the breakfast table.
The "method of differences" refers to a reasoning process sometimes illustrated by a family meal gone bad. If everyone eats everything and everyone gets sick, the culprit is a mystery; but, if one person refrains from eating salad, and she's the only one who doesn't get sick, then logic dictates that suspicion falls upon the salad. But be careful!
Carl Lewis, Lindsey Vonn, and Michael Phelps eat Wheaties for breakfast, whereas Eric Jorgenson prefers frosted miniwheats. Therefore, eating Wheaties for breakfast makes Olympic champions.
The fallacy of affirmation of the consequent is another instance of the slipperiness associated with assigning causes to events. From the truth of a conditional statement
If there's a power outage after a storm, then the houses will be dark
one should not conclude that the following switcheroo results in more truth:
If the houses are dark, then there's been a storm and the power is out.
While clicking here and there, from the starting point of "Jerry Fodor," I ended up reading this obituary of the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin. It's quite long, and I'd bet 97 readers out of a hundred will remember only the anecdote pertaining to an incident from Dworkin's courtship of his eventual wife. He'd been an ace law student and so as a young man got a job clerking for the famous federal appeals court judge Learned Hand. At the start of one of their first dates, Dworkin explained that he had to drop off a document at the home of his boss. Hand, who was then in his 80s, met the young couple at the door and insisted that they step inside. He then spent the next two hours mixing dry martinis and talking brilliantly. As they were leaving, Dworkin's future wife said to him, "If I see more of you, do I get to see more of him?"
Enjoyable, though arguably a better fit in Hand's obituary.