On 2024-09-10 13:14:44 +0000, olcott said:
> On 9/10/2024 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-09 13:22:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2024 8:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quine is just too freaking stupid to understand that the term "bachelor"
>>> is an otherwise totally meaningless finite string until it is stipulated
>>> to have the meaning of ~Married & Adult & Male.
>>
>> If he is too stupid to understand that then why does he claim it?
>>
> Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
> is too stupid to understand it.
>
> Two Dogmas of Empiricism
> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
> I should probably read his whole paper.
In that text (section (ner the end of section I) Quine claims that "bachelor"
means the same as "unmarried man". What do you find wrong with Quine's claim?
--
Mikko
|
|