« Comments on London Ed's "Towards a Positive Theory" | Main | Validity and Semantics: Will the Real Frodo Baggins Please Stand Up? »

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Goodness we were arguing about that even then. Bill, please note that the Powerblogs link gives a 500 (internal server) error.

>>If 'a' occurs two or more times in a form diagram, then no argument of that form has an equivocation on a term whose place is held by 'a.'

So according to you, the following argument

Alexander seized Helen
Alexander did not seize Helen
:. Someone seized and did not seize Helen.

is not of the form

a is F
a is G
some F is G

when 'Alexander' is equivocal. At that time I was reading Lukasiewicz, who is very strong on 'form' being the outward and visible manifestation of a sign. As I understand him, he would say that the 'Alexander' argument does have the same form as the placeholder argument below. This is because the first token of 'Alexander' is spelled in exactly the same way, i.e. has the same letters in the same order as the second token. Indeed, we couldn't even talk about the 'first' and the 'second' token of that name type unless that were the case.

Or do you hold that, when the names are equivocal, i.e. have different meanings, then they are not tokens of the same type. I.e. the first occurrence of 'Alexander' is not a token of 'Alexander', nor is the second. But then how can I even talk about 'the first occurrence' of that name? It's very confusing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

December 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad