[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:35:02PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:52:21PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > [...] > > > > > Can the Verification Principle be verified? Or is it just meaningless? > > > > > > > > Its presence can be verified if you design a test that determines if a > > > > person is following it, and subject someone to it. However, you probably > > > > meant to ask if the veracity of the principle could be tested or not. The > > > > answer is no; it's a prescription for human behavior, or a definition of > > > > the word "meaningful", not a statement about reality. However, "Pres. > > > > McGovern is more real than Sherlock Holmes" purports to be a statement > > > > about reality, but is actually meaningless. > > > > > > I disagree. "M is more real than SH" is a statement about the > > > amount of similarity between hypothetical circumstances and real > > > circumstances. It is not about reality only. > > > > simsa fi ma > > Which propositions are true in that set of circumstances, and what > things exist, etc. > > We can plainly say that Foo is more real than Bar if Foo differs > from reality in only a few propositions (and is still considered > "accessible", i.e. it'll differ in the neccesary manner to still > be internally consistent) and Bar differs by a comparitively larger > number. You intend to count propositions? Are you sure that they are countable? > > > But anyway, if the veracity of the VP can't be verified, then by > > > the VP we should view it as meaningless. So the VP is self-contradictory, > > > even if it is only supposed to be some sort of ethical code or > > > something, as you say. > > > > The VP constitutes my definition of "meaningful", and as a definition, it > > is not a statement about reality. The VP refers to statements that are > > alleged to be about reality. > > Definitions are statements about reality. They are statements about > how words are used. No. Definitions are prescriptive, observation of usage is descriptive. > If VP is really intended as a definition (which it isn't honestly), it > falls much short of how the word is actually used and is thus a failure. Philosophy commonly proposes specialized and well-defined meanings for terms that differ from common parlance by people who don't ponder the meanings of the terms they use anywhere near the amount that philosophers do. > If you just wanted a word for that particular meaning, you would > use a different, new word instead of hijacking a word with an > established meaning. > > Either way, the VP is meaningless by the VP definition of 'meaningless'. Repeating it doesn't make it so; neither does claiming to know the emotional motivations of people you can't name. -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();