Discussion:
{linguistic truth} is the foundation of truth in mathematical logic
(too old to reply)
olcott
2024-09-05 23:41:55 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Mikko
2024-09-06 12:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
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.
--
Mikko
olcott
2024-09-06 12:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Mikko
2024-09-07 08:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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.
--
Mikko
olcott
2024-09-07 13:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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 !
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Richard Damon
2024-09-07 13:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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.

Your seemingly important need to just try to redefine terms just shows
that you actually don't understand the terms that you are using.
olcott
2024-09-09 13:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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
Post by Richard Damon
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Richard Damon
2024-09-10 02:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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.
No, you are just too freaking stupid to understand that he is working
under the assumption that we are talking ENGLISH, and thus the term
"bachelor" has its Natuaral Language Meaning which has more meanings the
the one you tried to stipulate (becasue you don't get to post-facto
stipulate the definitions into his problem).

I guess you are saying you never earned your Bachelor degree, because it
doesn't exist.
Post by olcott
Within my own foundation of linguistic truth this is dead obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
Then write up a FULL definition of your FULL system.

I guess the problem is you are just too stupid to know what you have to do.
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
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.
Nope, when people like you try to redefine terms just because YOU don't
understand them, YOU just prove that YOU ARE AFU.

Your stupiditiy which makes you not understand what other people are
saying doesn't make them stupid, it just proves how stupid you are.
Mikko
2024-09-10 09:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
--
Mikko
olcott
2024-09-10 13:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
is too stupid to understand it.

Two Dogmas of Empiricism
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I should probably read his whole paper.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Mikko
2024-09-11 07:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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?
--
Mikko
olcott
2024-09-11 12:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Mikko
2024-09-12 08:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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.
--
Mikko
olcott
2024-09-13 01:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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.

I have studied them as Montague grammar so I know them much
better than even Carnap ever did. It has always been the
case the bachelor is stipulated to mean ~married so Quine
was always wrong about this.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Mikko
2024-09-13 08:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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?
--
Mikko
olcott
2024-09-14 21:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Richard Damon
2024-09-15 02:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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.
No, the word Bachelor has meaning well before you make that specific
definition, as it was assumed at the beginning, we were talking "English".

And thus words mean what they mean.

Your stupidity in not understanding the issues, doesn;t make HIM stupid,
it shows YOUR stupidity.

It is clear that YOU are the one not understand the neaunces that other
is saying, becuase you areh proved that you just don;t understand the
basic meaning of words, because you have traind yourself to misuse them
as needed.
Mikko
2024-09-15 09:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Richard Damon
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
Post by Mikko
Post by olcott
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?
Rudolf Carnap claims it and Willard Van Orman Quine
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/
How many words you need to have before you can define anything?
Post by olcott
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.
Where did Quine say otherwise?
--
Mikko
Loading...