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:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood >>>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
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? >>>>>>>>>
(~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.
It is a tautology to say that expressions of language that'
are true or false on the basis of their meaning are established
as true of false by a contiguous sequence of truth preserving
operations as truth-makers between (x or ~x) and the expressions
of language that make (x or ~x) true.
When anyone disagrees with the gist of this they are necessarily
incorrect.
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:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood >>>>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
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? >>>>>>>>>>
(~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.
It is a tautology to say that expressions of language that
are true or false on the basis of their meaning are established
as true of false by a contiguous sequence of truth preserving
operations as truth-makers between (x or ~x) and the expressions
of language that make (x or ~x) true.
Which is irrelevant to your false claim about Quine.
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:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood >>>>>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
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? >>>>>>>>>>>
(~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.
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:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
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 knownDoes that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
(~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.
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
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.
That does not justify lying.
I never lie.
Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:34:40 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,371 |