silly points of usage
- From: george <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:59:36 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 23, 3:35 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's too bad you decided instead simply to
self-destruct over silly points of usage.
I do not think that points of usage are silly.
I just plain don't concede that. SOME of them are silly,
but the way you PROVE that a point of usage is silly
is basically by isomorphism; you prove that works out the same either
way;
you prove that it doesn't much MATTER which way you resolve the point.
If it MATTERS then it's NOT silly.
Back when TF was alive I was notorious for arguing (vs.him and AK)
against
using "true" as opposed to "true in this or that model" around issues
of
first-order arithmetic (or even CALLING it "the language of first-
order arithmetic",
for that matter). THAT is a usage that you might view as "universal
and
justified" but that I have always been contemptuous of.
My position is that the community at large IS JUST WRONG in some of
its
usage choices and that responsible actors can make a positive
contribution
BY CHOOSING TO ESCHEW locutions that, DESPITE their ubiquity, have
SOME demonstrably bad pedagogical consequences.
If all you want to do is champion the status quo and make sure that
people
have learned it properly, then obviously, WE WILL FIGHT more than we
co-operate.
.
- References:
- what follows from denying an axiom
- From: george
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: george
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Gc
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Gc
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: george
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: george
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: george
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: george
- Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- From: Chris Menzel
- what follows from denying an axiom
- Prev by Date: Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- Next by Date: Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- Previous by thread: Re: what follows from denying an axiom
- Next by thread: a first-order second-order language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|