Re: A theorem for agnostics
From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 07/26/04
- Next message: G. Frege: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Previous message: David Bandel: "Gomoku solution"
- In reply to: Paul Holbach: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Next in thread: G. Frege: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Reply: G. Frege: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Reply: Paul Holbach: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Jul 2004 02:00:43 -0500
paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de (Paul Holbach) wrote:
>> paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de (Paul Holbach) wrote in message news:<
>> 881c8779.0407221954.31b74a36@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Insiders, who can always tell the
>> logical from the illogical below the surface of their idiomatic
>> expressions, may go their own convenient way. - But, nevertheless, too
>> much verbal sloppiness in logical discourse does increase the
>> likelihood that misinterpretations and false conclusions start
>> creeping in, even among 'the knowledgeable ones'!
>
>"Die Sprachen sind in logischen Fragen unzuverlässig. Ist es doch
>nicht eine der geringsten Aufgaben des Logikers, auf die Fallstricke
>hinzuweisen, die von der Sprache dem Denkenden gelegt werden."
>
>(Frege: "Die Verneinung", 1918)
>
>"As regards logical issues, the languages are unreliable. It is not
>one of the logician´s minor tasks to point to the snares which
>language has set for the thinker."
I object to the word "unreliable."
Without that word, it is reasonable to inference "logical issues" as
intending "theoretical logical issues." But "reliable" is a pragmatic
logic word, is it not? Is there some theoretical logic definition of
"reliable" of which I am unaware?
With that word there, "logical issues" becomes ambiguous.
Theoretical logic? Pragmatic logic? Both?
Pragmatically, language is certainly not unreliable and that is so easy
to demonstrate that I won't bore readers with it. Briefly, people would
stop using it. The world would stop. Language is self-correcting
specifically to the point of realiability, and there are thousands of
professional linguists working night and day to assure that very thing.
I have lots of examples. I've used them before, not even questioned,
never mind refuted. Aircraft carriers, business, software
implementation and support, for instances. Usenet is a great example,
just as I am here trying to make the envisioned use of this quote
in this group more reliable in this post. I will keep trying until I
judge that it is, and stop there.
The definition of reliable I am using is: "A probability to satisfy the
circumstances and importance of the subject." It is (IMO) a more
operative version of the common usage dictionary definition of "rely."
I further have confidence in it because I've posted it many times and
nobody has objected so far.
Note: This is not necessarily a criticism of Frege. Most obviously,
there are the vagaries of translation to English and "reliable" has
synonyms. Also, such authors are often quoted incorrectly, or quoted
correctly out of context, or make common usage mistakes when leaving
their theoretical context for popular description, or once in a great
while will stray outside their specific fields and make loose
statements. Certainly not as frequently as a simpleton like myself.
Larry
- Next message: G. Frege: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Previous message: David Bandel: "Gomoku solution"
- In reply to: Paul Holbach: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Next in thread: G. Frege: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Reply: G. Frege: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Reply: Paul Holbach: "Re: A theorem for agnostics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
