Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: {linguistic truth} is the foundation of truth in mathematical
 logic
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:11:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vc03gg$grkl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vbdfk4$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> <vbu8ga$5k3r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 03:11:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d235ae0db3579965e32965ac043532df";
	logging-data="552597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18i7FDCCXMF3RKZCQQzIKIW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pm4z8FNTVfCzT/b8opD+xfskg5E=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbu8ga$5k3r$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5474

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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
> 

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