Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 16:18:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <vc4ujq$1ma6t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vbdfk4$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc03gg$grkl$1@dont-email.me> <vc0rgp$ou75$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:18:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="88b5a84a704158f220230f155ead92b7";
	logging-data="1779933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I0GUFipTWHKDuUXyHCPJx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iSc/JQe66Z8lYNuhnJpYVFQXPyo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vc0rgp$ou75$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6017

On 9/13/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-13 01:11:44 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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