Sujet : Re: True on the basis of meaning (and not any other kind)
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 08. Aug 2024, 18:01:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v92q4f$37e9$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/8/2024 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-07 14:04:09 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/7/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-06 11:47:01 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 8/6/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-04 12:04:23 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 8/4/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-03 13:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
>
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
>
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
>
>
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
>
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
>
Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
>
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
>
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.
>
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
>
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified,
which alone is wrong.
>
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
>
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
>
So what is wrong with Quines opinion that the truth of "A bachelor
is not married" comes from the meaning of the words?
>
>
If he said that then he would be saying that he has no
objection to the {Analytic/Synthetic} distinction. He is
famous for having an objection to this.
>
What makes you thing he has no objection not involving batchelors to
the analytinc/synthetic distinction?
>
>
I only skimmed his paper. I don't have to even look at anything
that said besides his conclusion to know that it is wrong.
>
In that case you don't know how sensitive his conclusion is to
a minor change in argument.
>
>
All that I care about is unambiguously defining the term
{true on the basis of meaning} so that I can show Tarski and
Gödel are wrong.
That does not justify your lies about Quine.
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Analytic Expressions of language not linked to their semantic meaning are simply untrue
Re: Analytic Expressions of language not linked to their semantic meaning are simply untrue