Post by olcottPost by Richard DamonPost by olcottPost by MikkoPost by olcottPost by MikkoPost by olcottA 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 olcottWithin 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 olcottPost by Richard DamonYour 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.