[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 07:47:47PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> 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?
It is not neccesary to count things to be able to make claims about
them. This may, in your opinion, give the claim less value or
whatnot. But it's still a claim that can be made. I can claim "No
men are mortal" (or "all men are mortal") regardless of whether
I've counted every man, it would just be a false claim (or a true
one).
> > > > 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.
Definitions are not prescriptive. Or at least, they shouldn't be
(joke intended).
> > 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.
No. What philosophy commonly does is wank around and redefine terms
which have actual means, pervert them to mean something else, and
then prove god exists or whatever bullshit they wanted to do with
it. :)
> > 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.
But it's obviously so. Perhaps I didn't spell out the logic clearly
enough.... You admit that it's veracity cannot be verified. Assuming
the priniciple: everything unverifable is 'meaningless', the
principle is unverifiable, and therefore the principle is 'meaningless'.
Therefore if the principle is true, it is 'meaningless', and if it
is false it is useless. Either way it's broken ;)
If you disagree, let's hear a reason[1]. As (I hope) you know,
whether I can name someone has nothing to do with anything (and
it's a google away if I really cared about names).
[1] You did also suggest (as an alternative to the definition angle)
that because it is a ethical/moral prescription for "proper" human
conduct it somehow gets to escape itself. But if that is the case
then every other ethical issue must also escape the principle as
well (unless it is given preferential treatment, which is also
broken), and ethical issues are among the most truely meaningless
(actual definition, not VP) of all "philosophical" issues. So if
that is the case, the VP produces bad results with a bias toward
ethics bullshit, and is thus still broken.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
bin2YjoDalL8m.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped