Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- In reply to: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Next in thread: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Reply: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:49:33 GMT
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:50:18 GMT, patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Tautologies and Empirical Truth
>> --------------
>>
>> In a frank discussion with Wolf Kirchmeir yesterday concerning whether
>> tautologies constitute empirical evidence he took occasion to remind
>> me quite candidly that tautologies are always true. And the moral he
>> drew from this was that tautological truths can't be empirical because
>> empirical observations are always problematic and tautologies are not.
>>
>> Then I got to pondering. It seemed a shame to have something that was
>> always true and not be able to draw some useful information from it.
>> Here was this beacon of universal truth, and we had no use for it. I
>> understood that philosophers and scientists consider tautologies
>> useless despite their universal truth. However, I decided that the
>> final chapter on usefullness of the tautology had yet to be written.
>>
>> Let's suppose we have a tautology, any tautology. And we recognize the
>> universal truth of that tautology. What conclusions can we draw from
>> this?
>>
>> If a tautology is universally true, alternatives to the tautology
>> cannot be true and must be universally false. And, further, this
>> must be true of all tautologies.
>>
>> Consequently, everything including empirical evidence represents a
>> tautology or it cannot be true and must be false.
>>
>> Thus any empirical observation which is problematic must represent
>> part of a tautology. For example, three inches and not three inches or
>> blue and not blue. These are empirical observations and form parts of
>> tautologies or they cannot be problematic and must be false.
>>
>> In point of fact each part of a tautology is an empirical observation,
>> and this is what we mean by an empirical observation despite the
>> conventional interpretation of empirical observations as inherently
>> problematic.
>>
>> Further each part of the tautology is subject to evaluation either in
>> terms of problematic correctness or in terms of self contradiction. If
>> either part of a tautology is self contradictory, it must be false and
>> the other part must be universally true whether empirical in
>> conventional problematic terms or not.
>>
>> In other words, even though tautoligies in themselves are not
>> problematic and cannot represent empirical observations, the reverse
>> is not true and empirical observations can and do represent parts of
>> tautologies.
>>
>
>Well for some interpretation of your words, i think you are skirting
>dangerously close to rediscovering a bit of wisdom from an eminent 20th
>century philosopher.
>
>This is the way i see it ...
>
>A truth is stated from some web of belief. Outside of that web it may,
>or may not be true. The question is whether some agent in the web must
>sense something outside of the web to determine a truth. For example a
>person in the web of literate English speakers would say it true that a
>bachelor is unmarried and male. No one in that web needs to check
>outside of that web to be quite confident that truth applies in all
>cases - no matter what.
>
>But outside of that web (literate English speakers) this may not be the
>case. Let me set a scene. There was an attractive widow and her young
>daughter named Bernice. The widow was seeking a new husband. Frequently
>in the presence of Bernice she would ask a man, "Are you a bachelor?"
>and if he answered yes, she would gladly accept his advances; otherwise
>she would sternly rebuff him. Now occasionally Bernice would mingle
>with these same men in the market and on occasion she would be
>introduced to their wifes. Now you can see that from Bernice's web of
>belief a bachelor may be married or not, you must ask him to find out.
Yeah, that'll really do a lot of good.
>So we see, that whether a truth is analytic or synthetic is totally
>dependent on your web of belief. Or in your words "even though
>tautologies in themselves are not contingent and cannot represent
>empirical observations, the reverse is not true and empirical
>observations can and do represent parts of a web of belief." ... but i
>have substituted "contingent" for your "problematic" and "web of belief"
>for your use of "tautology".
patty, you really need to take that web of belief back to the church
where you bought it and get a refund. It doesn't matter where ideas
originate. It matters where they wind up through demonstration.
Problematic means contingent.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- In reply to: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Next in thread: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Reply: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|