Ingvar Johansson wrote:
> Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb:
>> Ingvar seems, to me, to have the wish to call squarelikeness 'squareness'.
>>
>
> In relation to your story it makes good semantical sense to say:
> "squareness can take degrees" (compare: "truth can take degrees"). Then
> of course the term 'squareness' ('truth') is no longer synonymous with
> the term 'absolute squareness' ('absolutely true'), but who would think
> so? It seems to me as if you have a wish to be able to put in jail uses
> of the term 'truth' that do not immediately conform to your ordinary use
> of this term. (01)
Ingvar, we begin to play word games. Sure, if you replace my
'squareness' with 'absolute squareness' and use 'squareness' with the
meaning I had for 'squareness', I must agree with you that squareness
takes degrees. (02)
And I can use the term 'truth' to name my left thumb, the concept of a
pizza as a concept, or whatever else -- and then we can fight over what
truth is. But if, as it seemed to me, we were discussing the truth of a
statement or theory as its correctly describing thee facts, then it
seemed obvious to me that a statement may either describe the facts
correctly or not -- possibly partially correctly in the latter case, but
still incorrectly. Hence the notion of two-valued truth, and defense
against degrees of it. (03)
But sure, use any term in any way you like. My feeling is that it is
you who tries to discredit the reasoning of others by using phrases such
as 'you seem to wish to put in jail', which bring unnecessary emotional
context. (But we are emotional thinkers, right.) (04)
vQ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|