On 9/7/24 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-06 12:13:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2024 7:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-05 23:41:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> A whole body of {linguistic truth} can be defined as expressions
>>>>> of language that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
>>>>> in this same language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Expressions that can only be known to be true on the basis
>>>>> of observation belong to a different class of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Linguistic things should be discussed in sci.lang.
>>>> This group is for things related to logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The actual foundation of logical and mathematical truth
>>> is simply relations between finite strings, thus linguistic
>>> truth.
>>
>> I don't think logicians want to use the word "linguistic" for anything
>> in foundations of logic.
>>
>
> I don't care. When I refer to analytic truth most everyone
> says that has been disavowed by Quine and the conversation
> dies right there.
>
> The most apt name for truth specified by relations between
> finite strings is linguistic truth. Truth that requires sense
> data form the sense organs become empirical truth.
>
> This converts the analytic/synthetic distinction into the
> linguistic/empirical distinction so Willard Van Orman Quine
> can STFU !
>
The problem is that you don't seem to understand the concept of domain
of discussion (or context).
Quine is talking about the limitation of Natural Language to discuss
concepts, that BECAUSE words can have ill-defined meaning, a statement
in Natural Language can be ambiguous.
Your seemingly important need to just try to redefine terms just shows
that you actually don't understand the terms that you are using.
|
|