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 .