On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:10 AM, Smith, Barry wrote: (01)
> At 12:14 AM 7/16/2007, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>>
>> BS: If we have a sentence in a biology textbook, say "blood cells
>> are non-nucleated",
>> then is this about cells in reality (as I, and I guess common sense,
>> would assume)
>> or about cells in the biology model?
>>
>> If by "about" we mean something like "applies to" or "true of",
>> is there any harm in saying that the sentences are about both?
>
>
> So that a full model of the sentences in the biology textbook would
> have two kinds of cells, real ones and model ones?
> BS
>
Or, a more charitable interpretation might be that one model of the
sentences might have real cells in it, while another model might have
model cells in it. Which does indeed seem to be an accurate statement
about how Tarskian semantics captures a lack of information, by
allowing more models than may have been intended. The 'model cells'
might well be called, following mathematical precedent, 'non-
standard' cells. (02)
Pat (03)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|