Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Aug 2005 08:45:16 -0700
H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > Surely not. I am pointing out that, if Mr. Shobe is correct that the
> > concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to the same
> > things, then asserting (as you did) "There is no concept of
> > 'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to asserting "There is
> > no concept of 'proof' in logic."
>
> Let's do a little word game:
>
> I am pointing that, if the words 'bloem' and 'flower'
> refer to the same things, then asserting "there is no
> word 'bloem' in English" is equivalent to asserting
> "there is no word 'flower' in English."
>
> Do you agree with this? :-)
Well, yes, but we weren't talking about words but concepts. The fact
that an English-speaker doesn't use the word 'bloem' does not show that
English-speakers have no such concept. In fact they do, even though
they use a different word ('flower') for it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Acme Diagnostics
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: George Dance
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- References:
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Jesse Alama
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Acme Diagnostics
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Martin Shobe
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: George Dance
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: George Dance
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: George Dance
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Prev by Date: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Next by Date: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Next by thread: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|