On 2024-09-13 01:11:44 +0000, olcott said:
> On 9/12/2024 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-11 12:21:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some how Quine convinced most people that the analytic/synthetic
>>> distinction does not exist. I never could understand how people
>>> could be so stupid to believe this so I formulated my own
>>> linguistic/empirical distinction.
>>>
>>> Truth entirely contained within language versus truth requiring
>>> sense data from the sense organs.
>>
>> So you don't disagree with my observation that you were wrong about Quine.
>>
>
> Quine never could understand that totally dead obvious
> analytic/synthetic distinction even when the synonymity
> of bachelor and ~married was specified by Rudolf Carnap
> meaning postulates.
How does acceptance of that claimed synonymity indicate non-understanding?
--
Mikko
|
|