What is a dispositional masker

1

• What is a dispositional masker?
• A critique of
• Manley and Wasserman
• Sungho Choi
• Kyung Hee University

2
The simple conditional analysis of dispositions

• SCA. N is disposed to M when C iff N would M if
  C
• The stimulating circumstance and manifestation
  of a disposition

3
The problem of maskers

• A disposition can be masked in such a way
  that it is not manifested even when the
  appropriate stimulus conditions are present and
  the causal basis remains intact
• MWs case of masking If a fragile glass were
  dropped, a sorcerer would step in and alter the
  extrinsic features of the environment of the
  glass, say, change the solid floor below into
  fluffy mattresses thereby the glass would not
  break
• SCA tells us that the glass is not disposed to
  break when dropped

4
The strategy of getting specific

• Whilst it appears that the sentence The glass
  is disposed to break when dropped attributes a
  simple disposition whose stimulating circumstance
  is one where the glass is dropped and its
  manifestation is the event of breaking, it
  actually attributes a more specific disposition
  D which is explicitly attributed by SD
• SD. x is disposed to break when dropped
  without maskers like the sorcerer on Earth from
  one metre up onto a solid surface with a Shore
  durometre measurement of 90A, through a substance
  with a density of 1.2 kg/m3 lets call the
  dispositional property D
• The glass would break if dropped without the
  sorcerer on Earth from one metre up and so on

5
The case of one millimetre up

• The glass is dropped from one millimetre up and
  so it does not break
• No masking happens in cases where the
  disposition is not manifested because the
  appropriate stimulus conditions are not present
• The glass does not break simply because the
  appropriate stimulus conditions for D are not
  present
• In resemblance with the case where the
  nail-polish, which is not water-soluble but
  acetone-soluble, does not dissolve when it is put
  into water

6
The case of one metre up

• A sorcerer is eager to protect the glass. The
  glass is dropped from one metre up onto a hard
  floor and so on but the sorcerer instantly lift
  the floor to the point that is just one
  millimetre down from the glass and so the glass
  does not break
• The glass does not break owing to the operation
  of a masker, the sorcerer Masking
• In resemblance with the case where the
  nail-polish is put into acetone but it does not
  dissolve because a sorcerer turns acetone into
  water

7
The conditional analysis of dispositions

• The case of one metre up is generally thought of
  as a real counterexample to the simple
  conditional analysis of dispositions
• The case of one millimetre up is not deemed as a
  real threat to the simple conditional analysis of
  dispositions
• Manley and Wassermans failure to distinguish
  these two cases taints one of their objections to
  the conditional analysis of dispositions

8
Context-dependence

• The semantic value of a dispositional ascription
  is at least partly determined by the context in
  which the ascription is made
• In the mouth of a homemaker, the television set
  is not disposed to break when struck with a soft
  blow
• In the mouth of a construction worker, the
  television set is disposed to break when struck
  with a very hard blow

9
The incompleteness of dispositional predicates

• Elizabeth Prior
• Dispositional predicates like is disposed to
  break when struck and is fragile are
  incomplete in the sense that they have more than
  one argument place
• The predicate is disposed to break when struck
  has many hidden argument places, one of which is
  to be filled with the strength of a striking
  force
• x is disposed to break when struck with a
  particular strength at a particular angle, and so
  on

10
Explaining context-dependence

• The context-dependence of dispositional
  ascriptions is due to the fact that the values
  for the hidden argument places of a dispositional
  predicate are in most cases fixed by the context
  of ascription
• The difference in the semantic value of the
  dispositional ascription x is disposed to break
  when struck between the homemaker and
  construction worker

11
Semantically expanded stimuli

• The semantic value of a dispositional ascription
  varies from context to context
• The stimulus condition of a dispositional
  ascription, too, varies from context to context
• We can obtain the contextually expanded stimulus
  of a dispositional ascription by putting together
  its first-approximation stimulus and the values
  for the hidden argument places fixed by the
  context of ascription
• Homemaker vs. construction worker

12
Characteristic stimulus

• When we take full consideration of the context
  of a given dispositional ascription, we will
  acquire its contextually expanded stimulus that
  is maximally specific in the context of
  ascription, which I call its characteristic
  stimulus
• The predicate is disposed to break when
  dropped has many hidden argument places.
• By fixing the values for more of the hidden
  argument places of is disposed to break when
  dropped by means of the context of ascription,
  we acquire an increasingly specific stimulus, the
  event of being dropped on earth from one metre up
  onto a hard surface and so on

13
Manley and Wassermans example

• Suppose you say, My glass is disposed to break
  when dropped, so it would break if dropped. Your
  friend points out that the glass is currently
  being held over a soft bed, so that it would not
  break if dropped. You are tempted to reply that
  what you meant is that the glass is disposed to
  break when dropped onto a hard surface, and that
  it would break if dropped on such a surface. Your
  obstinate friend then holds the glass over a hard
  surface, but only a millimetre above. When you
  add the requirement that it be dropped from at
  least a metre up. . .

14
Interpretation

• One after another hidden argument place of is
  disposed to break when dropped is saturated by
  the context of ascription
• Your friend imagines the glasss being subject
  to a stimulus that involves a different value for
  one of the hidden argument places of is disposed
  to break when dropped than its characteristic
  stimulus
• Your friend envisages the glasss being dropped
  onto a soft surface, where the phrase onto a
  soft surface gives a value to the hidden
  argument place of is disposed to break when
  dropped that is to be filled with the hardness
  of the surface

15
Characteristic stimulus contd

• No guarantee that the characteristic stimulus of
  a dispositional ascription so characterized is
  identical to the stimulating circumstance of the
  precise disposition that is claimed to be
  attributed by it

16
Contextual contribution

• The stimulating circumstance of D is one where
  x is dropped without maskers like the sorcerer on
  Earth from one metre up onto a solid surface and
  so on
• The condition of xs being dropped on Earth from
  one metre up onto a solid surface and so on stems
  from the fact that the hidden argument places of
  the dispositional predicate is disposed to break
  when dropped are saturated by the context of
  dispositional ascription

17
Non-contextual semantic element

• The characteristic stimulus of the dispositional
  ascription, which is maximally specific among its
  contextually expanded stimuli, does not include
  the condition that there are no maskers
• The dispositional predicate is disposed to
  break when dropped does not have a hidden
  argument place that is to be filled with the
  presence or absence of a masker

18
The nature of dispositionality

• For every object x, it is never the case that x
  is disposed to break when dropped in the presence
  of a masker
• When I simply say that x is disposed to M, I
  typically mean that x is disposed to M when no
  maskers are operative, regardless of the context
  of dispositional ascription
• The rationale for the condition of the absence
  of a masker has to do with the context-independent
  nature of dispositionality

19
The distinction

• The condition that there are no maskers is
  required by the context-independent meaning of a
  dispositional ascription that is pertinent to the
  nature of dispositionality
• The condition of xs being dropped on Earth from
  one metre up onto a solid surface and so on, on
  the one hand, and the condition of the absence of
  a masker, on the other
• The distinction between the characteristic
  stimulus and stimulating circumstance of a
  dispositional ascription

20
What is a dispositional masker?

• A masker is defined as a factor that would block
  the manifestation of a disposition by foiling the
  process from the stimulus even if its
  characteristic stimulus obtains
• Driving a wedge between cases of masking and
  other cases where the disposition does not
  manifest because its characteristic stimulus does
  not occur

21
The case of one millimetre up

• The specification of the characteristic stimulus
  of x is disposed to break when dropped must
  include reference to the height from which the
  glass is dropped, say, the phrase from one metre
  up
• The condition that the glass is dropped from one
  metre up
• It is not a case where the glass is subject to
  the characteristic stimulus of x is disposed to
  break when dropped but does not break owing to
  the operation of a masker
• The contexts role of filling the hidden
  argument places of a dispositional predicate

22
The case of one metre up

• The characteristic stimulus of x is disposed to
  break when dropped occurs
• The glass is indeed subject to the
  characteristic stimulus of x is disposed to
  break when dropped but does not break owing to
  the operation of a masker
• Generally held to be a counterexample to the
  thought that x is disposed to break when
  dropped is equivalent to the counterfactual
  conditional If x were subject to its
  characteristic stimulus (as opposed to the
  stimulating circumstance of D) it would break

23
Small error?

• The case of one millimetre up is not a case of
  masking
• Wreaking havoc with MWs most important critique
  of the conditional analysis of dispositions
• The contextual and non-contextual part of
  Lewiss strategy of getting specific
• What is at work in averting the problem of
  maskers from the conditional analysis of
  dispositions?

24
What is wrong?

• The structure of MWs criticism of the
  conditional analysis of dispositions
• The question of how to articulate the contexts
  role of filling the hidden argument places of a
  dispositional predicate
• Achilles heels
• The non-contextual part of Lewiss strategy of
  getting specific remains intact