Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 9/13/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:How many words you need to have before you can define anything?On 2024-09-13 01:11:44 +0000, olcott said:Quine argues that all attempts to define and
On 9/12/2024 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:How does acceptance of that claimed synonymity indicate non-understanding?On 2024-09-11 12:21:09 +0000, olcott said:Quine never could understand that totally dead obvious
On 9/11/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:So you don't disagree with my observation that you were wrong about Quine.On 2024-09-10 13:14:44 +0000, olcott said:Some how Quine convinced most people that the analytic/synthetic
On 9/10/2024 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:In that text (section (ner the end of section I) Quine claims that "bachelor"On 2024-09-09 13:22:24 +0000, olcott said:Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
On 9/7/2024 8:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:If he is too stupid to understand that then why does he claim it?On 9/7/24 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:Quine is just too freaking stupid to understand that the term "bachelor"On 9/7/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:The problem is that you don't seem to understand the concept of domain of discussion (or context).On 2024-09-06 12:13:22 +0000, olcott said:I don't care. When I refer to analytic truth most everyone
On 9/6/2024 7:03 AM, Mikko wrote:I don't think logicians want to use the word "linguistic" for anythingOn 2024-09-05 23:41:55 +0000, olcott said:The actual foundation of logical and mathematical truth
A whole body of {linguistic truth} can be defined as expressionsLinguistic things should be discussed in sci.lang.
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.
This group is for things related to logic.
is simply relations between finite strings, thus linguistic
truth.
in foundations of logic.
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 !
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.
is an otherwise totally meaningless finite string until it is stipulated
to have the meaning of ~Married & Adult & Male.
is too stupid to understand it.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I should probably read his whole paper.
means the same as "unmarried man". What do you find wrong with Quine's claim?
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.
analytic/synthetic distinction even when the synonymity
of bachelor and ~married was specified by Rudolf Carnap
meaning postulates.
understand analyticity are circular.
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
It is not true that bachelor are ~married mutuallyWhere did Quine say otherwise?
define each other. "Bachelor" is a meaningless
string until it is assigned the meaning of ~married.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.