Re: All panduks are green
- From: "Tron" <tronfuru@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:00:44 +0200
Hi,
"Newberry" <newberryxy@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i melding
news:d36a00b0-08bb-4be5-8f37-a1d487c8209b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Does everybody agree that
"All panduks are green"
is meaningless?
That depends on
- which language you are using
- the rules for introducing terms (such as "panduk") into the language
- whether the term "panduk" has been introduced according to the rules
and
- the role of "meaning" in that language
Overall, you might be confusing the notion of meaning, which is moreof a
linguistic term than a logical one,
with the notion of "truth" defined as "reference", possibly to some
"existant", possibly verified by "evidence", which possibly has to be
"empirical".
In a language theory where "meaning" is defined by reference, and reference
can only be made to something that ir real, and "real" is defined as
something which can be observed (a physical entity, a "res"), "all panduks
are green" is meaningless if and only if there are no panduks, verified by
no one ever having seen a single panduk. Ever.
However, no useful theory of meaning for natural languages can be based on
reference-to-things.
T
.
- References:
- All panduks are green
- From: Newberry
- All panduks are green
- Prev by Date: Re: All panduks are green
- Next by Date: Re: Size Theory. corrected again
- Previous by thread: Re: All panduks are green
- Next by thread: Re: All panduks are green
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
