Re: "Friendly Premises"

George Dance wrote: 
H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote:

George Dance wrote:

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 problem in your argument is the referring to; what is being referred to by what it not important. I changed "concept" into "word" because concepts do not refer to anything, but words do.


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.

True. But that doesn't mean that anyone will understand you when you say "bloem" in an English-speaking country (except, perhaps, for a few Dutch tourists :-).

groente
-- Sander
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... >> refer to the same things, then asserting "there is no ... >> word 'bloem' in English" is equivalent to asserting ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to the same things, then asserting "There is no concept of 'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to asserting "There is ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... >> referring to someone else's assertion. ... > Surely you are eagerly affirming the proposition that there is no ... 'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to asserting "There is ...
    (sci.logic)