Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: Are we really running out of oil? 30 year left"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Flaws wanted"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:25:16 -0600
Neil W Rickert wrote:
> Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> writes:
>
>>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>My point was that the vast majority of English words have no
>>>definition. The meaning of these words comes from their usage within
>>>the language speaking community,
>
>>The *usage* of a word is its most precise definition, as
>>Wittgenstein makes clear.
>
> You see a written definition. On the basis of that definition you
> say that a sentence is true. All that requires is logic applied to
> the definition.
Sentences aren't defined. Words are defined. Sentences are
constructed according to a grammar. That is why usage is
important. The same word may have different meanings depending
on its usage in a sentence.
> But when meaning is determined by usage, then you have to go out and
> do the research on how people are using the word before you can conclude
> that a sentence is true by virtue of the meaning of the terms.
Only if you are totally illiterate. Most people have a working
vocabulary of words:meanings. Many meanings can be inferred by
usage and context. I have a fairly large vocabulary, but I daily
use a dictionary.
> And even
> after doing the research on usage, you cannot be quite sure that you
> didn't miss a usage which would be inconsistent with the truth of
> your sentence.
Yes, natural language is not mathematics. You don't read much do
you?
>
> There is a big difference between those two.
Two what?
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: Are we really running out of oil? 30 year left"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Flaws wanted"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|