On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:
[ .... ]
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Be specific:
- Which sentence of that opus contains the mistake you ment
when you said "I uniquely made his mistake more clear" ?
- Which sentence of that opus expresses a disagreement that there are
any expressions that are proven completely true entirely on the basis >>>> of their meaning ?
That he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest. Since you
can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951) https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
provide the details of how analytic truth works:
*Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
Again, this is likely false, for the same reasons.
Search for the 98 instances of the keyword [synonym]
and you will see what I mean. He has no idea how
synonymity works.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.
A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Apart from the bits which can't be.
Such bits are categorically impossible for the entire
body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/26/2025 12:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest. Since you
can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
Or, far more likely, you are clueless about what he actually wrote, and
what it means.
You can just keyword search the term 98 instances of the
term [synonym] and see all of his mistakes.
You haven't provided any evidence for you actually having read the
original. You're likely just quoting somebody else's opinion of that
original.
If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
provide the details of how analytic truth works:
*Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*
In other words, if anybody disagrees with you, you bad mouth them.
Not on this. This material is difficult.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language >>>>> is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.
A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.
OK, take the true statement "Nuremberg is a good place to live.", a
statement expressed in language. Please state the axioms from which this
can be derived, and show that derivation.
I don't think that value judgments can be derived
from basic facts thus do not count as knowledge that
can be expressed using language.
Keep trying to come up with counter-examples so that
I can generalize to prove that counter-examples are
categorically impossible.
I doubt very much you can do this.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed >>>>> in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Apart from the bits which can't be.
Such bits are categorically impossible for the entire
body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.
Wrong. I just gave an example above. I think it likely that most bits
of knowledge expressible as language will not be derivable from your
axioms, of which you have yet to give a single example.
Try again. Value judgements do not count as knowledge
because they are not semantically entailed from basic facts.
The burden of proof is on you.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does >>>>>>>>>> not know
On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language? >>>>>>>>>>>>
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a >>>>>>>>>>>> finite string so you can do reasoning with it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
all human reasoning that can be expressed in language
<is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction >>>>>>>>>>> that humanity has totally screwed up since
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor
as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of
Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x) >>>>>>>>>>
that thing?
When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions
of language that are true entirely on their semantic
meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong.
Where did Quine say that?
When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
demarcated.
Where?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another >>>>>> topic.
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
Where does he say that?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
"The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
claim he said.
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with
some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
This totally screws up his ability to understand the notion
of expressions of language that are true entirely on the
basis of their meaning (The definition of analytic knowledge).
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does not know
On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language? >>>>>>>>>>>>
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a finite string
so you can do reasoning with it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
all human reasoning that can be expressed in language
<is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction >>>>>>>>>>> that humanity has totally screwed up since
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor
as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of
Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x) >>>>>>>>>>
that thing?
When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions
of language that are true entirely on their semantic
meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong.
Where did Quine say that?
When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
demarcated.
Where?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another >>>>>> topic.
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
Where does he say that?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
"The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
claim he said.
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with
some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
On 4/26/2025 12:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language >>>>> is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.
A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.
OK, take the true statement "Nuremberg is a good place to live.", a
statement expressed in language. Please state the axioms from which this
can be derived, and show that derivation.
I don't think that value judgments can be derived
from basic facts thus do not count as knowledge that
can be expressed using language.
On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:
[ .... ]
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Be specific:
- Which sentence of that opus contains the mistake you ment
when you said "I uniquely made his mistake more clear" ?
- Which sentence of that opus expresses a disagreement that there are
any expressions that are proven completely true entirely on the
basis
of their meaning ?
That he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest. Since you
can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951) https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
provide the details of how analytic truth works:
*Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
Again, this is likely false, for the same reasons.
Search for the 98 instances of the keyword [synonym]
and you will see what I mean. He has no idea how
synonymity works.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.
A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Apart from the bits which can't be.
Such bits are categorically impossible for the entire
body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/26/2025 3:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 12:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest. Since you >>>>>> can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems >>>>>> more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
Or, far more likely, you are clueless about what he actually wrote, and >>>> what it means.
You can just keyword search the term 98 instances of the
term [synonym] and see all of his mistakes.
I could, but I'm not going to. I put it to you, again, you have not read
and understood that paper of Quine's. It says things you don't like,
that you can't counter logically, so you just end up cursing.
You haven't provided any evidence for you actually having read the
original. You're likely just quoting somebody else's opinion of that
original.
If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
provide the details of how analytic truth works:
*Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*
In other words, if anybody disagrees with you, you bad mouth them.
Not on this. This material is difficult.
I don't doubt it. So why don't you conclude that you might not have
understood it fully?
Everyone knows that Quine rejected the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
If you don't know this or don't believe this I DON'T CARE.
Everyone knows that analytic truth is expressions of language
that are true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
If you don't know this or don't believe this I DON'T CARE.
When we link a the set of basic facts ....
.... to the set of expressions derived from these basic facts by
semantic logical entailment then we get the set of expressions that
are proven true on entirely on the basis of their meaning, hence
proving that the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction
exists.
The above is proven true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words.
[ .... ]
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language >>>>>>> is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.
A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.
OK, take the true statement "Nuremberg is a good place to live.", a
statement expressed in language. Please state the axioms from which this >>>> can be derived, and show that derivation.
I don't think that value judgments can be derived
from basic facts thus do not count as knowledge that
can be expressed using language.
OK, so you remove from "the entire body of human knowledge that can be
expressed in language" everything that _can't_ be derived from your
axioms. That's circular and tautological.
Not at all We remove uncertain opinions from knowledge.
Even if you did this, what you would end up with would be an impoverished
lifeless mechanical subset of knowledge. You would have no music or
arts, no reason to get out of bed, even, no experience, and no human
relationships. Amongst other things.
Not all. Knowledge about opinions is knowledge.
Knowledge only includes provable certainties.
All these things can be expressed in language. They cannot be derived
from some set of axioms.
Statements of opinions are anchored in the meaning
of their words. The full meaning of every word is
an aspect of basic facts. When I say the full meaning
I mean that the word: "human" may have a quadrillion
related axioms comprised of basic facts.
Keep trying to come up with counter-examples so that
I can generalize to prove that counter-examples are
categorically impossible.
If you keep changing the rules every time I give you such a counter
example, then clearly I can't.
I keep elaborating my words when you find aspects that
are not clear.
As I said, it's up to you to prove your assertion that the entire body of
human knowledge can be derived from "basic facts". You haven't yet given
even a single example of such a basic fact, never mind some derivation of
useful human knowledge from it.
I have done this many hundreds of times:
{cats} <are> {animals}
objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
A simplified overview of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
I doubt very much you can do this.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed >>>>>>> in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Apart from the bits which can't be.
Such bits are categorically impossible for the entire
body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.
Wrong. I just gave an example above. I think it likely that most bits >>>> of knowledge expressible as language will not be derivable from your
axioms, of which you have yet to give a single example.
Try again. Value judgements do not count as knowledge
because they are not semantically entailed from basic facts.
You're simply wrong, there. Knowledge is very much build up from value
judgments.
Anything less that certainty is not knowledge.
There are no such "basic facts", apart from in specialised
fields such as mathematics. The universe is simply too rich, too
colourful, too multifacetted to be reducible to some sterile system of
"basic facts".
Basic Facts are the atoms of semantic meaning.
Think of these as the complete meaning of every word.
The burden of proof is on you.
As yet, you have not met that burden.
I cannot further elaborate to clarify my view
except by additional feedback.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking above your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with
some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
He is stupidly wrong a about this.
Analytic knowledge exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of
knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/27/2025 9:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 3:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 12:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest. Since you >>>>>>>> can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems >>>>>>>> more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x) >>>>>>> gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
Or, far more likely, you are clueless about what he actually wrote, and >>>>>> what it means.
You can just keyword search the term 98 instances of the
term [synonym] and see all of his mistakes.
I could, but I'm not going to. I put it to you, again, you have not read >>>> and understood that paper of Quine's. It says things you don't like,
that you can't counter logically, so you just end up cursing.
You haven't provided any evidence for you actually having read the >>>>>> original. You're likely just quoting somebody else's opinion of that >>>>>> original.
If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
provide the details of how analytic truth works:
*Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*
In other words, if anybody disagrees with you, you bad mouth them.
Not on this. This material is difficult.
I don't doubt it. So why don't you conclude that you might not have
understood it fully?
No answer?
My statements are self-evidently correct as proven by the
meaning of their words.
It <is> inherently true that a body of analytic knowledge
can be comprised by applying semantic logical entailment to
a set of basic facts expressed in language.
I just found the 98 instances of the term [synonym] [in Quine's paper].
That alone shows that he is quite confused.
When we link a the set of basic facts ....
And that typo epitomises one of the difficulties in your viewpoint.
There is no single definitive set of basic facts. There are only lots
of sets of basic facts, all of them incomplete.
An essential feature of a set is membership; either an element is a
member of a set or it's not. Since there's no workable criterion for
membership of your purported set of all basic facts, that set does not
exist.
That no complete definition of basic facts has
currently been fully elaborated sure as Hell does
not even hint that such a definition cannot be provided.
It seems to me that the compositional meaning
of "basic[common]" and "facts[common]" fully
specifies the meaning that I intend.
This definition already excluded your "value
judgment opinion" on the basis that it is
no kind of fact. Facts must be certainly true.
One can derive theorems from mathematical axioms and logic, one can
derive scientific truth from observations. But outside of these
fields, this idea of "derivation from basic facts" would appear to be
questionable at best.
It is stipulated that {cats> <are> {animals}.
It is ONLY this stipulation that provides semantic
meaning to the otherwise meaningless finite strings
of "cats" and "animals.
With enough of these Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates
we have all of the basic knowledge of the world that
can be expressed in language.
OK, so you remove from "the entire body of human knowledge that can
be expressed in language" everything that _can't_ be derived from
your axioms. That's circular and tautological.
Not at all We remove uncertain opinions from knowledge.
Amongst all the other knowledge that can't be derived in your way.
There's going to be very little of value left. Certainly no art or
music, no religion, little, if any, science. All you'll be left with is
pure mathematics. Your formulation of knowledge is not a useful one.
Every fact that can be written down about these things
is included. It is a fact that Pluto is no longer
considered to be a planet.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed
in language includes anything that anyone could ever
say about anything.
All these things can be expressed in language. They cannot be derived >>>> from some set of axioms.
Statements of opinions are anchored in the meaning
of their words. The full meaning of every word is
an aspect of basic facts. When I say the full meaning
I mean that the word: "human" may have a quadrillion
related axioms comprised of basic facts.
A quadrillion "basic facts" is ludicrous. One cannot construct anything
worthwhile from such a large set.
Presumption.
Every detail about every detail of everything related
to humans may easily take that many. One of the things
that this requires is every detail about every government
that ever existed. Likewise requires every detail of
all of the advances in human medicine since medicine
first began.
It is not aspects which are unclear, it is that your whole attempted
construction is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the builders at
Babel trying to construct a tower to reach Heaven.
"There is in my opinion no important theoretical difference between
natural languages and the artificial languages of logicians; indeed I consider it possible to comprehend the syntax and semantics of both
kinds of languages with a single natural and mathematically precise
theory." (Montague 1970c, 373) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/#Bac
As I said, it's up to you to prove your assertion that the entire body of >>>> human knowledge can be derived from "basic facts". You haven't yet given >>>> even a single example of such a basic fact, never mind some derivation of >>>> useful human knowledge from it.
I have done this many hundreds of times:
{cats} <are> {animals}
OK.
objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
A simplified overview of a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
You're talking about abstracting some properties of things and thus
categorising them. This process of abstraction will lose the essence of
those things just like pulling the wings off a butterfly to see how it
flies loses the butterfly.
If it loses ALL of the essence then no one would
have ever been interested in text novels. The ONLY
thing that it loses are the first hand direct experience
of physical sensations.
It also enables True(X) to be computed for the entire
body of knowledge that can be expressed on language.
Anything less that certainty is not knowledge.
Don't be ridiculous! You're implying that scientific knowledge, being
less than certain, is an oxymoron.
If you fully understand the deep philosophy behind that
you will know that I am correct.
To "know" things that turn turn to be false is an oxymoron.
There are few, if any, words which have complete meanings.
We keep adding Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates
to a word until its complete meaning is fully specified.
Dictionaries don't have enough room for this. Each
sense meaning of a word is defined separately.
Duplicate sense meanings are combined.
Their meanings are highly dependent on the context they're used in,
and new contexts come into existence continually.
Context is kept in a separate discourse context knowledge ontology.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/27/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/26/25 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:
[ .... ]
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Be specific:
- Which sentence of that opus contains the mistake you ment
when you said "I uniquely made his mistake more clear" ?
- Which sentence of that opus expresses a disagreement that there are >>>>>> any expressions that are proven completely true entirely on the >>>>>> basis
of their meaning ?
That he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest. Since you >>>> can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
But he doesn't use double talk and weasel words.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
*A type hierarchy is a knowledge tree acyclic graph*
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine
which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided
into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals,
relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does not know
On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a finite string
so you can do reasoning with it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
all human reasoning that can be expressed in language >>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction >>>>>>>>>>>>> that humanity has totally screwed up since
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor
as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of
Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>
that thing?
When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions >>>>>>>>>>> of language that are true entirely on their semantic
meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong.
Where did Quine say that?
When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
demarcated.
Where?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another >>>>>>>> topic.
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
Where does he say that?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title >>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you >>>>>> claim he said.
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with
some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
On 4/27/2025 2:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <[email protected]> wrote:Gödel agrees.
On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
[ .... ]
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking above your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with >>>>>> some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
He is stupidly wrong a about this.
He was a leading academic at a prestigeous university. It is vanishingly >> unlike that he was "stupidly wrong". It is far more likely that you have >> failed to understand his message; that it is you who is stupidly wrong.
Analytic knowledge exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of
knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
An acyclic directed graph? Highly implausible. Any real system of
knowledge organised in a graph (if that is even possible) is going to
have cycles in it. That's assuming "analytic knowledge" exists at all.
*A type hierarchy is a knowledge tree acyclic graph*
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine
which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided
into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals,
relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:Where did Quine say that?
On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language?
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite string so you can do reasoning with it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
all human reasoning that can be expressed in language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction
that humanity has totally screwed up since
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor
as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of
Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not know
that thing?
When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are true entirely on their semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>
When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
demarcated.
Where?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about >>>>>>>>>> another
topic.
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely >>>>>>>>> on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are> >>>>>>>>> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
Where does he say that?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title >>>>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you >>>>>>>> claim he said.
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems
with some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
meanings of words.
The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated
to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x).
This is just like BASIC
100 let x = 5
He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
A directed graph tree only relates terms to other terms. It does not
give them any other meaning.
Relating terms to other terms is all that is required
to give all of the terms all of their meaning that can
be expressed in words.
We need not go into the philosophy of language theories
of how the first words acquired their original meaning.
We simply plug the detailed meanings into a knowledge
ontology inheritance hierarchy. This is all encoded using
extensions to Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates. Richard
Montague already greatly extended these.
On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:Where did Quine say that?
On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a finite string
so you can do reasoning with it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
all human reasoning that can be expressed in language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that humanity has totally screwed up since
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor
as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of
Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does not know
that thing?
When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are true entirely on their semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>
When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
demarcated.
Where?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another >>>>>>>>>> topic.
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely >>>>>>>>> on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are> >>>>>>>>> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
Where does he say that?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title >>>>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you >>>>>>>> claim he said.
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with >>>>>> some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
meanings of words.
The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated
to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x).
This is just like BASIC
100 let x = 5
He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
A directed graph tree only relates terms to other terms. It does not
give them any other meaning.
Relating terms to other terms is all that is required
to give all of the terms all of their meaning that can
be expressed in words.
We need not go into the philosophy of language theories
of how the first words acquired their original meaning.
We simply plug the detailed meanings into a knowledge
ontology inheritance hierarchy. This is all encoded using
extensions to Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates. Richard
Montague already greatly extended these.
On 4/29/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-28 15:32:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:Where did Quine say that?
On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language?
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a finite string
so you can do reasoning with it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
all human reasoning that can be expressed in language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction
that humanity has totally screwed up since
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Willard Van Orman Quine
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does not know
that thing?
When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are true entirely on their semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately >>>>>>>>>>>>> demarcated.
Where?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction >>>>>>>>>>>
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another
topic.
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are> >>>>>>>>>>> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>>>>>>>>>>
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
Where does he say that?
Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction >>>>>>>>>>>
“...he is best known for his rejection of the
analytic/synthetic distinction.”
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title >>>>>>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you >>>>>>>>>> claim he said.
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't >>>>>>>> understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your >>>>>>>> knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with >>>>>>>> some of the basic concepts of language theory.
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at >>>>>> least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue >>>>>> against.
Quine argues that all attempts to define and
understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
the notion of analyticity should be rejected
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
meanings of words.
The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated
to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x).
The word "bachelor" is a word of a natural language and has a meaning.
A definition can relate the otherwise meaningless symbol "Bachelor" to
the meaningless symbols "Male", "Married", and "Adult" but leaves it
otherwise meaningless.
Until the knowledge ontology is fully populated with
Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:13:19 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,595 |