maybe we ignorami who are less familiar (or unfamiliar) with Frege, Quine, or Churchland could benefit.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > If I say e.g. > > “A wheel is round”, or, 4=2+2 > > Then that is a correct definition (although it may not be a complete > definition, adequate to distinguish the object from all related > objects, or all other objects as such). > > If I say e.g. > > > “A wheel is a square object”, or, 5=2+2 > > Then that is an incorrect definition. > > So there are correct and incorrect (false) definitions, even although > they might not be complete, and even although they might be more or > less useful for the given purpose. We can often give various proofs > for definitions, and so on. > > ==================== > > I'm all too familiar with the problems of the analytic/synthetic > distinction post Frege, Quine and Churchland, thanks. > > E. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
