On 8/6/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
What makes you thing he has
no objection not involving batchelors to
the analytinc/synthetic distinction?
I only skimmed his paper.
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
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? >>>>>>>>
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~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?
On 8/6/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:Maybe you should not reject his brand new invention that nobody else
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:
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
I only skimmed his paper. I don't have to even look at anything thatSo what is wrong with Quines opinion that the truth of "A bachelor isIf he said that then he would be saying that he has no objection to
not married" comes from the meaning of the words?
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?
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.
Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 06:47:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
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:
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
Maybe you should not reject his brand new invention that nobody elseI only skimmed his paper. I don't have to even look at anything thatSo 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?
said besides his conclusion to know that it is wrong.
noticed out-of-hand without review.
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 8/6/2024 7:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/6/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
What makes you thing he has
no objection not involving batchelors to
the analytinc/synthetic distinction?
I only skimmed his paper.
To be clear,
"I only skimmed his paper."
is what one says when
one wants people to ignore what comes next.
Is
"I only skimmed his paper."
a typo, perhaps?
Maybe you want to go back and read
what you're explaining to everyone?
[ignored]
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:29:57 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,352 |