Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'

On Oct 25, 6:10?pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:29 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Oct 24, 10:13?pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:15 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 24, 6:54?pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Speech has context, and the context is essential in understanding
the meaning. Every field of human endeavor "purloins" common
terms to give them a refined technical meaning, and with good
reason. When speaking of "list", "set", and "bag" it is necessary
to be mindful of the context to know whether that's something
to do with grocery shopping or axiomatically defined
collections of mathematical abstractions.

If this were rec.butterfly.collecting, then a logician
using technical terms of logic would indeed have the onus of
translation. However it is not. It is, in fact, sci.logic,
and only a committed ignoramus would insist that the
technical meanings of the terminology of logic are
out of place.

(...more so guilty the other side I think) - I don't have an objection
to technical terms. But where they conflict with their common parlance
meanings I don't expect parties to flag up what language they are
using as a _substitute_ for getting the drift.

I don't either. I would instead expect that the discipline-specific
meaning would be assumed, unless specified otherwise. This
is standard practice in every technical discipline I've been
a part of.

For example, translation, as between an englishman and a frenchman,
does not proceed by each party stopping to declare what language is
being spoken, even when there is a similarity in spelling or sound of
the words being spoken. They ignore these differences and simply get
on with the job of understanding. If there is instruction, then it is
a polite secondary activity to translation (we would hope).

This analogy might possibly work if we were discussing some
discipline that *wasn't* the study of formal language itself.
Logic is not about making handwavey philosophical arguments
using vaguely defined terms and "getting the drift." Instead
it is about rigorously syntactic and semantic analysis of
sentences in formal languages and transformations thereon.

It can be strongly argued that logic is founded on making handwavey
displays that rely on a measure of intuition. Frege, if you accept him
as a logician, was concerned to find foundations for his logic and he
employed a number of ideas to serve those foundations, one of which
was "Fregean elucidation". This relied on intuitive and charitable
interpretation, particulary of his concept/object distinction which he
employed in his foundations of arithmetic.

Wittgenstein also, if you accept him as a logician, made a distinction
in logic between what can only be shown - displayed, and what can be
written.

This is all dead end crap. It leads nowhere any different than
elsiemelsie's and his all-is-meaningless diatribe. You make some
gonzo claim which I or george or Peter knock down and you
don't respond, rather you just make more gonzo claims.
Your failure to respond to my request for anything concrete
deriving from your criticisms is an implicit admission that
you have nothing useful to say.

Marshall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You said: logic is about rigorously syntactic and semantic analysis
of
sentences in formal languages and transformations thereon.

I challenged this with two examples: 1) Frege, if you accept him
as a logician, was concerned to find foundations for his logic and he
employed a number of ideas to serve those foundations, one of which
was "Fregean elucidation". This relied on intuitive and charitable
interpretation, particulary of his concept/object distinction which
he
employed in his foundations of arithmetic. 2) Wittgenstein also, if
you accept him as a logician, made a distinction in logic between what
can only be shown - displayed, and what can be written.

I am still waiting for your counter-argument. A claim of dead end crap
does not cut the mustard. If you do not have an argument (and you do
not have an argument because you are a technician and not a logician),
then try looking up "Fregean elucidation" in google. Otherwise, stay
out of the kitchen.


.

Quantcast