John, (01)
I think we may be moving off track a little. (02)
Two points. (03)
> The primary role of a definition is to tell people how to use
> the term in a way other people will understand. None of those
> words can be defined by observable properties of the individual. (04)
I assume we have agreed that definitions and criteria of identity are
different - and that they are orthogonal - e.g. one can have intensional
definitions of extensional (criteria of identity) objects and vice versa. (05)
I assume that people will stipulate different meanings/uses of definition as
they see fit. Yours seems just as good as Wiki's
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition ). It is helpful to know in advance
which one is being used. (06)
However, I would expect that:
1) Definitions would help to give the term they 'define' an extension - the
things it refers to.
2) People could be clear about whether different definitions in principle
relate to different objects (for example, they need to to meet your criteria
of understanding). So one could adopt the principle that where different
definitions have the same extension, they are definitions of the same
object. If one does not do that, one needs some other kind of principle. (07)
> The same plant, for example, could be a weed or a delicacy,
> depending on somebody's intention. (08)
Underlying this comment is the fact that reference is intentional - so what
a word refers to is determined by intention. I agree. (09)
> How do you observe it? By watching someone go to a car dealer
> and negotiate? By watching the buyer go to an auction and
> raise a hand at the appropriate moment? By seeing somebody
> typing away at a browser connected to the Internet? (010)
To extend your argument, how do you know what any word means (given words
are intentional)?
But this is about words rather than the things they refer to. (011)
Even
> if you saw those events, how would you know that the buyer
> didn't sell the car or the repo man didn't tow it away? (012)
This is an epistemic argument. To see this assume for a moment you have
god-like omnipotence. Then you would be aware of the events you described
and so able to make a judgement. In this case, it seems to be your lack of
knowledge that leads to not knowing. (013)
If you wanted to make an ontic vagueness argument - I would agree that at
the boundary one can make a case for this in law (hence the use of title in
English law) - and also elsewhere, e.g. baldness. However, I do not see the
connection you want to make with this topic. (014)
Regards,
Chris Partridge
Chief Ontologist (015)
Mobile: +44 790 5167263
Phone: +44 20 81331891
Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (016)
BORO Centre Limited
Website: www.BOROCentre.com
Registered in England No: 04418581
Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
Oxfordshire RG9 2AR (017)
This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may be
privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named recipient
of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor
disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO Centre
Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no cost to
yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked using Anti
Virus software. (018)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-
> std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 07 August 2009 12:51
> To: uom-ontology-std
> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] uom-ontology-std - strawman UML
>
> Chris,
>
> The term 'Cambridge property' was introduced by Peter Geach in the
> derisive phrase "mere Cambridge property" without giving a definition.
> Barry Miller (in the Stanford page you cited) gave a definition:
>
> A Cambridge property is the referent either of a relational
> predicate or of a purely formal predicate.
>
> That's fairly clear, but it's at the level of Quine's dictum:
> "To be is to be the value of a quantified variable."
>
> I use the term 'role type' for a very widely used type of word
> or concept that everybody uses daily:
>
> Author, Player, Spouse, Buyer, Seller, Pet, Employee, Manager,
> Contractor, Pilot, Driver, Mathematician, Brother, Sister,
> Student, Weed, Nuisance, Tool, Prize, Reward, Favor, Example...
>
> CP> However, I can easily give an extensional definition of them
> > - if the role of the definition is to capture the extension...
>
> The primary role of a definition is to tell people how to use
> the term in a way other people will understand. None of those
> words can be defined by observable properties of the individual.
> The same plant, for example, could be a weed or a delicacy,
> depending on somebody's intention.
>
> Brother and Sister are two of the easiest to define, but note
> that there may be only one person in the world who actually
> observed the relevant conditions, and you have to take her word
> for it. The 4-D proponents usually reply "Yes, but somewhere
> in that vast infinity of space and time, the relevant events
> really do exist."
>
> CP> "For example, if I buy a car, the car does not change in any
> > observable way." One can, of course, observe the process of
> > buying.
>
> How do you observe it? By watching someone go to a car dealer
> and negotiate? By watching the buyer go to an auction and
> raise a hand at the appropriate moment? By seeing somebody
> typing away at a browser connected to the Internet? Even
> if you saw those events, how would you know that the buyer
> didn't sell the car or the repo man didn't tow it away?
>
> Since car ownership is registered by the government, there are
> more reliable methods than observing the act of buying. But
> very few things anybody owns are ever registered in that way.
>
> For things other than cars and houses, it would be far more honest
> to use the traditional way of stating the criterion: "God knows."
> Unfortunately, when you need proof of ownership, God rarely
> testifies on the witness stand.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-
> ontology-std/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
> (019)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (020)
|