Re: {linguistic truth} is the foundation of truth in mathematical logic

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.