Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:09:09 GMT
Lester Zick wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:15:07 GMT, patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:22:32 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
>>><cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:4180c3a7.71190262@netnews.att.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:04:19 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
>>>>><wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Always true" does not mean "universal truth."
>>>>>
>>>>>Aw, c'mon, Wolf, you're quibbling. If something is always true, it's
>>>>>true for all things everywhere at all times. If it's not true for all
>>>>>things everywhere, it's not true all the time. Totally irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards - Lester
>>>>
>>>>I am more sympathetic to Wolf's original point, which was something
>>>>which is logically/tautologically true does not have an empircal (physical
>>>>reality) implication. Of course if the premise is true about reality then
>>>>the argument is called sound and then has an actual implication about
>>>>reality, because you are essentially just stating a fact about reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>So statements about reality which are true constitutes a sound
>>>argument? A mere statement doesn't constitute an argument at all.
>>>
>>>I can appreciate where your sympathies lie, Stephen, but where does
>>>your reason lie?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The earth is roughly round because the surface always loosely fits a curve,
>>>
>>>
>>>Which may be true but is hardly relevant to tautologies which
>>>universally exclude alternatives. Observations like "a bachelor is
>>>unmarried" or "the earth is round because it loosely fits a sphere"
>>>are not tautologies, they're statements of definition.
>>>
>>>To make them tautologies you would have to add alternatives:
>>>
>>>"A bachelor is either married or unmarried"
>>>
>>>"The earth is either round or not round because it fits a sphere"
>>>
>>>in which cases the alternatives are self contradictory.
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>
>>Yes, a sentence like "an unmarried man (bachalor) is either married or
>>unmarried" is certainly self contradictory, but that is not our point.
>>The point is that, one way or the other, that sentence is not about the
>>world. It is about the language in which we are talking. That is the
>>point that Kant, and Wolf, and Stephen, and i (but not Quine) have been
>>trying to get you to acknowledge. If you at least acknowledge that
>>(fact?) then perhaps we can get beyond this confusion and make some
>>progress.
>
>
> The reason I don't acknowledge that position, patty, is because it's
> incorrect. The point that you, Kant, Wolf, and Stephan are making
> (assuming they are all making it) is about the world as much as the
> language they make it about is about the world. My language is about
> the world. I can't speak for others. If their language is not about
> the world then I suggest they stop using it and find some substitute.
>
> Regards - Lester
Well in a sense we are arguing past each other in this thread. It just
dawned on me that you have already acknowledged this point with your
words "tautoligies in themselves are not problematic and cannot
represent empirical observations". Please translate "cannot represent
empirical observations" into "are not about the world". In other words
the world would be just the same, whether the statements were true or
false.
It seems to me that in your paragraph above you include our language in
the world - you lump those two separate domains together - and thereby
end up saying, truthfully i might add, that we are all talking about the
world or we are just flapping our lips. But our point, and Kant's, was
to draw the distinction, and not to deny it. Please ack that if you
can, and we can happily put this thread to bed.
patty
- Next message: patty: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
