Chris, (01)
Thank you for clarifications and references about Wittgenstein's theory.
While I can't argue (due to lack of expertize in mathematical logic) about its
theoretical applications, it seems to me that summarily writing off his work is
a bit premature. (02)
Firstly due to the lack of any viable alternative theory of meaning and
information (please correct me if I am wrong). (03)
>The general consensus among philosophers and
>linguists is that W's so-called "picture theory of meaning" (based on
>the passages above) is utterly untenable as a general semantic
>theory. (04)
Secondly calling his work "picture theory of meaning" does not do justice, even
given what you call "general consensus"(are you referring to mathematicians,
philosophers or computer scientists?) I came across a very different
characterization of his work as theory of "language as use" (perhaps another
consensus). Despite all these stamps put on his work over 80 years his main
thesis of what I called "application as context" remain very viable. (05)
Here is an example that supports this point of view:
This book is an extension of the discussions presented in Blair?s 1990 book
Language and Representation in Information Retrieval, which was selected as the
"Best Information Science Book of the Year" by the American Society for
Information Science
http://www.springer.com/computer/book/978-1-4020-4112-9 (06)
Len Yabloko, Owner/CEO
Next Generation Software
www.ontospace.net (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|