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

On 9/13/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

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?
 

Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular.
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
It is not true that bachelor are ~married mutually
define each other.  "Bachelor" is a meaningless
string until it is assigned the meaning of ~married.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer