Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]

david petry wrote:
If we are going to communicate, we have to agree on the ground rules.
What I have been arguing for are things that I consider to be part of
the ground rules essential for communication. The idea that only
falsifiable predictions are meaningful is definitional.

Exactly. It's YOUR definition. But since there are other senses of
'meaningful' that other people have, by allowing only your definition,
people would have to use other words for their senses of 'meaningful'.
But if your stipulation is only definitional, then you should be able
to advance your view without particular attachment to the WORD
'meaningful' and its honorific connotations. So we should be able to
use the word 'Petry-meaningful' or whatever. Then your view is that if
a statement is not falsfiable then it is not Petry-meaningful. And
that's about the extent of your philosophy. Now we can all go home
having taken note of the fact that you defined a term and that your
philsophy offers no more than the tautology that if a statement is not
Petry-meaningful then it is not Petry meaningful.

MoeBlee

.

Quantcast