I think Anscombe would disagree with that. Same with her followers: neo-Aristotelians and (to lesser extent) Rawlsians. These people also appeal to Wittgensteinian phil of language. I never read W, but perhaps he would also disagree.
Maybe Quine too. Wasn't his point that everything is connected?
They'd acknowledge some decoupling is good but not total decoupling.
This is why their theories can only be modeled through machine learning, not English.
Yeah, that sort of low-decoupling is just inherently antithetical to philosophy (and academic ideals more generally), IMO.
I think Anscombe would disagree with that. Same with her followers: neo-Aristotelians and (to lesser extent) Rawlsians. These people also appeal to Wittgensteinian phil of language. I never read W, but perhaps he would also disagree.
Maybe Quine too. Wasn't his point that everything is connected?
They'd acknowledge some decoupling is good but not total decoupling.
This is why their theories can only be modeled through machine learning, not English.