Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:55:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical truth redefined so that Quine can understand that
 bachelors are unmarried
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.lang
References: <0BWdnQX0AewCYmT4nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <ute8ut$1dgto$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2qdndqj8NDzRmf4nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <Dqucnc9uQZmcbGf4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1FidnTqSEa8jZWf4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <Ib2cnSo9XecAYGf4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <utf06l$1igmg$1@dont-email.me>
 <pdOcnXVLzdY4tWb4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <7L6cnSW_6YG9s2b4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:55:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7L6cnSW_6YG9s2b4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ZoCdnYH0FeDi-2H4nZ2dnZfqnPrp2rtk@giganews.com>
Lines: 525
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-v1S218ZqTNi9VPvh1se9m3yL5d//fnv2hCXOWQv86b4r4Z+AbYaf2iUOFt5On2jm1UJEXmyrZeyDSN2!dY4wlaCjztS0offJQuQzsj+XA/s8zKp80UBtUN2EPFLmOZhv8++kLPLYB5JQELx3YA/3vjGSPhtS
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 23475

On 03/20/2024 11:42 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/20/2024 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/20/2024 08:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2024 9:21 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>  > On 03/20/2024 05:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>  >> On 3/20/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>  >>> On 2024-03-19 21:11:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>> On 3/18/2024 5:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>  >>>>> On 2021-03-27 14:54:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> Most people construe the term "absolute truth" as necessarily
>>>  >>>>>> coming from the mind of God, thus atheists reject absolute
>>> truth.
>>>  >>>>>> Philosophy leaves religion out of it and says that analytical
>>> truth
>>>  >>>>>> can be verified on the basis of its meaning.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> Because Quine had such a hard time understanding that
>>> bachelors are
>>>  >>>>>> unmarried in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" I have adapted the
>>>  >>>>>> definition of analytical truth so that it can be more directly
>>>  >>>>>> divided from other forms of truth:
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> It is a sin to say anything untrue about other people.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> (1) Expressions of language that are defined to be true and
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> Truth is not a matter of definition.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> (2) Expressions of language that have been derived on the
>>> basis of
>>>  >>>>>> applying truth preserving operations.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> Only affirmative sentences and only if derived from true
>>> sentences.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> Note that the word "sentence" has different meanings in
>>> comp.thery
>>>  >>>>> and sci.lang. In the former (and in sci.logic) it usually
>>> excludes
>>>  >>>>> all but affirmative sentences.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> I am redefining analytical truth such that it is entirely
>>>  >>>> comprised of expressions that are stipulated to be true
>>>  >>>> Facts, and expressions that are a necessary consequence of
>>>  >>>> these Facts.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> By the proposed redefinition different sets of stipulations
>>>  >>> yield different analytical truths.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> The stipulations are merely all of the Facts that comprise the
>>>  >> model of the actual world. When properly formalized in knowledge
>>>  >> ontology inheritance hierarchy this gives an AI mind the capability
>>>  >> of human reasoning.
>>>  >>
>>>  >
>>>  > Reasoning gets involved teleology and ontology,
>>>  > the epistemology, with regards to all sorts
>>>  > aspects the philosophy of being and reasoning,
>>>  > then there's the empirical and what results
>>>  > why today for "scientism", that logical positivism,
>>>  > results that there's science, vis-a-vis,
>>>  > beliefs.
>>>  >
>>> Every element of the relevant details of the current model of the actual
>>> world would seem to be able to be encoded in formalized natural language
>>> semantics. Relevant details are defined as the degree of details
>>> required to perform at least the equivalent of human reasoning.
>>>
>>>  > I.e., "facts", are as "beliefs", that any fact
>>>  > alone is a stand-alone little model of a stated
>>>  > belief, then with regards to that not being,
>>>  > "infallibilistic".
>>>  >
>>> Actual Facts are stipulated to be true (like in Prolog)
>>> Expressions of language that are a necessary consequence
>>> of these Facts are also true. This gets a little trickier
>>> with inductive inference and judgement calls.
>>> "Pluto is no longer considered a planet."is true.
>>>
>>>  > This is also "Russell: is not the Pope".
>>>  > A usual doctrine and dogma of Catholicism,
>>>  > a major belief system historically,
>>>  > is that its leader the Pope, is infallible,
>>>  > then that Russell who is secular, once joked
>>>  > that 1=0 so that according to the Principle
>>>  > of Explosion, that he was the Pope, thus by
>>>  > extension infallible, and that's considered
>>>  > fallacious, and specious.
>>>  >
>>> The Principle of Explosion is hokum and tried to override and
>>> supersede the way the semantic logical entailment really works.
>>>
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
>>> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
>>> nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be
>>> invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>
>>> The above also contradicts the way the semantic logical entailment
>>> really works. P □□ Q means that Q is a necessary consequence of P.
>>>
>>>  > So, the belief system that a bag-of-facts is
>>>  > the entire world is specious.
>>>  >
>>> Not at all. These are called propositional attitudes.
>>> They are not necessarily true themselves they are merely
>>> the positions that some people really hold.
>>>
>>>  > The human reasoning then these days is that
>>>  > we have an entire philosophy of science, and
>>>  > the objective and subjective, and for intersubjectivity
>>>  > and interobjectivity, about first-principle/final-cause,
>>>  > and teleology from the theoretical and philosophical
>>>  > side the examination of reason of being by reason
>>> These things are anchored in value judgments that are themselves
>>> anchored in subjectivity.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
>>> Is correct only when the optimal criterion measure is the basis.
>>>
>>>  > in being, examination and test, and ontology from
>>>  > the theoretical and empirical side, with regards
>>>  > to those being among the usual concepts and
>>>  > exploring the fuller dialectic including
>>>  > deconstructive accounts for the elementarily
>>>  > fundamental.
>>>  >
>>> Deconstruction denotes the pursuing of the meaning of a text to the
>>> point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions
>>> upon which it is founded—supposedly showing that those foundations are
>>> irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
>>>
>>> The model of the actual world can be completely coherent.
>>> Propositional attitudes account for subjective beliefs.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_attitude
>>>
>>>  > It's not to be confused large-scale data aggregation
>>>  > and corresponding summary as mechanical inference,
>>>  > and correctness and thoroughness, of reasoning.
>>>  >
>>>  > When Aristotle wrote about syllogism that
>>>  > their truths aren't common, that's to be
>>>  > considered from the universe of syllogism,
>>>  > that they all have to be commonly true together,
>>>  > and that involves that things change and so
>>>  > that the modality is a temporality, and all
>>>  > else the quasi-modal is always contingent,
>>>  > which makes a statistical interpretation,
>>>  > which makes a scientific interpretation.
>>>  >
>>> Yes these differences account for knowledge of things
>>> changing over time. Pluto is no longer considered a planet.
>>> This "fact" has been updated.
>>>
>>>  > Otherwise of course, for any syllogism
>>>  > there's an opposite, for any stipulation
>>>  > there's an opposite, the juxtaposition,
>>>  > so that there's no default certification
>>>  > of stipulation, and it results rather
>>> *This is my system of categorically exhaustive reasoning*
>>> Different premises derive different conclusions about the same
>>> subject matter. Exactly one of a set of categorically exhaustive
>>> and mutually exclusive premises must be true.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========