ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:58:08 -0500 <4B5D08C0.9010107@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Ravi,    (01) RS> I think Logic and math interplay in the accurate realization > of Models but are Model Theories described simply somewhere?    (02) The simplest explanation is that model theory is based on the correspondence theory of truth: a statement is true if it corresponds to reality, and it's false if it doesn't. Model theory is just a systematic way of evaluating the truth or falsity of a statement in terms of some model of reality.    (03) For Tarski's own explanation of the idea, see    (04) http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/tarski.htm The Semantic Conception of Truth    (05) But people have criticized model theory because there is more to say about the meaning of a statement than just its truth conditions:    (06) 1. For example, the following three statements are true in every possible model, but the fact that they talk about different subjects indicates that they are not synonymous:    (07) a) Every cat is a cat.    (08) b) Every dog is a dog.    (09) c) Every unicorn is a unicorn.    (010) 2. Not all true statements are equally important, but model theory has nothing to say about importance or relevance.    (011) 3. Model theory says nothing about purposes, intentions, or goals. It can't distinguish why anybody would say anything, what the speaker intended to achieve by saying something, or what the listener would do upon hearing it.    (012) 4. Model theory can't distinguish something that is partially or approximately true from something that is egregiously false. The statement "That car weighs 2 tons" might be approximately true, but model theory would treat it as just as false as "That car weighs less than a feather" or "That car weighs more than a million tons."    (013) These objections don't imply that model theory is wrong for what it does. But they indicate that there is more to meaning than just the truth conditions for a statement.    (014) John    (015) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (016) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Paola Di Maio Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Duane Nickull Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Paola Di Maio Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, ravi sharma Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Avril Styrman Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, ravi sharma Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, ravi sharma Re: [ontolog-forum] Approximation (was: rant on pseudoscience), Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Approximation, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Approximation, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, David Eddy Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience, ravi sharma Re: [ontolog-forum] Mirror neurons in language use, Rich Cooper