Logic is in my view good -- the good toward which things tend when logic is
understood and followed. Words are a sort of utility by which we can
perform everything from mundane to exalted feats. But to give them more
than their due is an error I think even world-class philosophers like LW
make though in Wittgenstein's case it was substantially modified. Logic is
definitely prior to words through words are the instruments for expressing
it. I am speaking of course of logic as a universal that is devalued
whenever it is limited in its employment, Yet another argument for making
ethics a central term in a triadic approach to thinking.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> John F, Steven,List
>
> On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>
> If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking
> its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is
> achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by
> scientific parsing of the truth or falsity of a hypothesis, to determine a
> fallible but consequential truth.
>
>
> I very strongly agree.
>
> The point I make is that language is *not* based on logic.
>
>
> JLRC
>
> This may true if the author decides not to a logical language. The choice
> here at the discretion of  the author.
> Very few author’s choose to use common spoken language formally.  Thus,
> Tarsi’s notion of meta-languages which was used by Malatesta to specify the
> meanings of terms in different disciplines.  (I have written on this
> subject recently in the online journal, Information.)
>
>  Instead,
> every artificial language, which includes all the artificial notations
> of mathematics, logic, chemistry, computer programming…
>
>
> JLRC
> I find this phrase to be very confusing, John.
> In today’s terminology, Symbol systems  are not the same as “artificial
> notations”, but most formal notations are artificial symbols created by
> humans to express human thought or intent or meaning.
>
> Secondly, a critical distinction is whether or not the terms originate
> within a discipline and flow into the spoken language with time, or
> incorporated into a different technical language or otherwise. A
> PARTICULARLY INTERESTING CASE IS “DNA”.
>
>
> is based on
> a disciplined special-purpose subset of natural language.
>
> JLRC:
> This is a tricky statement in that the creation of new terms is often from
> outside of the standard spoken language OF THE PUBLIC.  The meaning of new
> terms is often first acquired in the meta-language and slowly abused until
> it acquires some sort of public face.  (One of the regular posters to this
> List-serve is particular keen on abusing technical terminology, re-shaping
> it beyond recognition or reason.)
>
> For example, "2 + 2 = 4" is an abbreviation for "Two and two is four."
> The symbol '+' is a simplified '&', which is a way of writing 'et'.
>
> JLRC
> Yes, one can use the notation of standard arithmetic such that this
> deployment of the symbol “+” is logically exact.
> BUT, THIS IS ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY, as you are well aware.  Units must be
> defined!
> The meaning of the “+” sign / symbol varies with the purpose of author and
> the logical notation (system system) the author is communicating with.
> Take genetic symbols as examples
>
> Secondly, the same term have different meanings in different
> meta-languages. This problem is particularly acute when the meta-languages
> are concatenated together with syzygies / sublations.  This is often
> necessary in relational meta-languages, such as physics and geology or
> molecular biology and medicine.
>
> Or, viewed from Tarski’s theory, the number of possible signatures for a
> meta-language is very large.
> I have sought passages in CSP communications that could possibly represent
> the notion of “signature” without success.
> I wonder if anyone else has explored this topic?
>
> Just some thoughts of possible interest to some readers.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to