[Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning

[Rob Freeman]

On 9/13/07, John F. Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:

>

>

> > doesn't any combination of symbols define a "logic" of its own?

>

> ...the short answer is "No!"

>

> The longer answer is that logic is intimately connected with

> the distinction between what is true and what is false about

> the domain of discourse -- usually some aspect of the real world,

> but possibly some abstract or imaginary world.



OK, then doesn't any _grammar_ define a logic of its own?

Remember the ad-hoc grammatical pattens found by syntax in the model I'm
suggesting all reflect meaningful regularities in a corpus (e.g. "strong" =
"black" or "strong" != "black"). They are only ad-hoc in the sense they
select between contradictory "truths".


> To cut to the chase a little, in going from an idea of syntax

> > based on fixed grammatical patterns to an idea of syntax based

> > on ad-hoc generalizations, haven't we brought syntax into much

> > closer correspondence with the idea of meaning associated with

> > Wittgenstein's "games", as described in your own article:

>

> Not unless you are prepared to specify the details of a completely

> new Wittgensteinian theory of logic



Perhaps I have misunderstood your article. Were you not presenting
Wittgenstein's games as an ad-hoc form of logic?

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.uib.no/mailman/public/corpora/attachments/20070913/5f8910d1/attachment.html