Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: {linguistic truth} is the foundation of truth in mathematical logic
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:24:42 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <vbu8ga$5k3r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vbdfk4$h64u$1@dont-email.me> <vber20$qdsh$1@dont-email.me> <vberl2$punj$10@dont-email.me> <vbh3ka$19upq$1@dont-email.me> <vbhjtn$1c7u5$3@dont-email.me> <791b35f72d5e8cf89944aaa6110d2140081f97d4@i2pn2.org> <vbmsqg$2dpff$4@dont-email.me> <vbp30i$2sqj3$1@dont-email.me> <vbpgo4$2vfau$2@dont-email.me> <vbrgpb$3frnj$1@dont-email.me> <vbs1vl$3im2p$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:24:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="91f4cddf0d322860019ac3a2cba76d34";
	logging-data="184443"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CplP70PqccZInr2yfngP4"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e8aUjH/UP+UJpb1g/gw9p9/Iu8s=
Bytes: 4671

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:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>> 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