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.
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.
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 !
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.
Within my own foundation of linguistic truth this is dead obvious.
This is related to yet not identical with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
Your seemingly important need to just try to redefine terms just shows
that you actually don't understand the terms that you are using.
When the meaning of terms is AFU such that the Sapir–Whorf
hypothesis makes it impossible to communicate new ideas
the incoherent existing terms must have their erroneous
ass corrected.
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.
On 9/10/2024 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
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:
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?
is too stupid to understand it.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I should probably read his whole paper.
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:Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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?
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.
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:Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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.Linguistic things should be discussed in sci.lang.
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.
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?
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.
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:Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressionsLinguistic things should be discussed in sci.lang. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This group is for things related to logic.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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? >>>>>>>>
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.
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:Quine never could understand that totally dead obvious
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:Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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 expressionsLinguistic things should be discussed in sci.lang. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This group is for things related to logic.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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? >>>>>>>>
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. >>>
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:06:35 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,902 |
| Posted today: | 1 |