I'm just going to assert that you're using language wrong and see what you have to say about it. Are you right to use the language however you want even if it's exactly opposite of everyone else? Can I start going around making statements about married bachelors and have those statements be true because I've decided on my own to change the meaning of the word?

Or are you able to understand that language is a community thing, and that my single declaration of a new meaning of a word does not itself define new truths?

Just because I think it's a trainwreck doesn't mean I don't want to participate or that I don't find it enjoyable. Now quit your whining and engage with the ideas so that you can push beyond philosophical naivete.

How do you even measure a "chance" of error in this context? What are the chances that I don't have hands?

What are the chances that if I say "a bachelor is a married person" that people would deem such a statement to be true? What are the chances that they're using the wrong definition of bachelor?

That is not even close to the same thing. In your example you are using the polar opposite of what a word means. I would see no point in doing this unless you want to intentionally be confusing. What I am doing is just essentially adding a descriptive term to a word to more clearly communicate my point. I am not the first one to use this either. I don't know how many times I have to say this but if you have a better word that you would prefer me to use to communicate this point let me know! Otherwise, you now understand what I mean so lets move on. Can you prove a synthetic proposition without any room for error?

Of course I understand this... I do not think my term is even a little bit confusing. You guys are just being obtuse.

Yes, I am not surprised you are enjoying a thread you consider to be a trainwreck. Based on previous conversations with you this sounds exactly like something you would want to do.

There are a few different ways to measure this but I don't think you have to. and I already explained why using the wrong definition of bachelor is a silly way of putting this because there is no such thing as a wrong or correct definition. Only good and bad ones. Even if our definition is later used differently or evolved into a new word through the evolution of language.. The message is still clear. If X is defined as not y you can't say x is y. There is no way this can be wrong analytically.

You're getting closer... What makes a definition "good" or "bad"?

Your concepts of "proof" and "room for error" are precisely the things in question.

No, we're being analytical. The room for doubting my concept of a bachelor is precisely on the same level of my doubting that I have hands.

I already explained this. 2 times in the thread

Why? I also agree truth is binary and proof should not be used as evidence without room for error. This is talking about obtaining a position with absolute certainty. Do you think this is possible for a synthetic proposition?


No it isn't. I already explained this as well and you are not addressing it. Again, you are being obtuse.

Why should anyone accept your definition of "good" as being good?

Because it is. This is the heart of the issue that's being raised. The problem is you want to say things mean one thing, and others are rejecting it.

I may or may not adopt either of these definitions, and that wouldn't be a problem for me.

Are you merely just repeating extreme skepticism?

I'm still not even sure if you know what the analytic-synthetic distinction is.

You can say that you've explained it, but that doesn't mean that your explanation was successful. I'm not talking about words, I'm talking about the concepts.

actually if you read the whole thread most people that have commented in here completely understand the point of the OP. It is just you a couple others that are having a problem..



Yes, because the OP is addressing someone who claims to have some sort of absolute knowledge and does not recognize that solipsism is just a problem that philosophers agree can probably never be solved and we will never know anything about the existential world that can not be prone to some degree of error.



I am using it in the context of logical positivism as most philosophers do now days.

Synthetic- A claim of existential reality. something
analytic- A claim that relies on definitions and consistent logical assertions. Something that is conceptual rather than real.

Can you show me a synthetic proposition that can be known with total certainty? that is not prone to some kind of error? You would be the first that is able to do this.

My concepts have already been explained. Do you agree that me saying: "x is defined as not y so something can not be x and y at the same time" Is true without any room for error? We are talking analytically true here.

You are essentially saying it is some how possible for an unmarried man to be married. It isn't lol.

What? You think this is true because you responded on the 7th post:

As I pointed out:

The OP is garbage. You may "like" it all you want, but it's just an empty rambling in the guise of some sort of interesting observation about the universe. Stoned college students can make it that far.

Well, close. Trying to draw a distinction between "conceptual" and "real" is going to be problematic for you.

Boring skepticism is boring.

Explained, yes. Your concepts are not the ones that are being questioned. I shall requote myself again:

It would be really helpful if you would slow down and read what I wrote, and then respond to what I wrote. Otherwise, this isn't going to go anywhere.

Edit: By "pure thought" I cannot conclude that a bachelor is an unmarried person. So where does that leave me with my concept of a bachelor?

I reject that "x is defined as not y." Where does that leave your claim?

"X and not X" cannot be logically consistent if I accept the law of non-contradiction. But what I doubt the law of non-contradiction? Is there room for error in accepting the law of non-contradiction?

This isn't correct, the distinction was introduced by Kant a good 130 years before the logical positivists. Logical positivism is largely considered self defeating fwiw and hasn't been a particularly popular philosophical position for 70 years or so. The analytic / synthetic distinction was denied by Quine about 50 years or so ago and while I disagree with him if we need to exclude all possible relevant alternatives in order to know something then we can't exclude analytic propositions.

You continue to use unnecessary qualifiers, what work is total doing here, what certainty is less than total? If it isn't totally certain is it certain at all?

GE Moore claimed about 100 years ago to be certain he had hands / was standing up, depending on the example. Now Moore implied that certainty was relative in doing this which is one of the reasons his account is denied but regardless he believed he had shown this. And again our analytic propositions are also subject to error. In order for us to see an analytic proposition as true we must be in receipt of the relevant concepts and as has been shown in this thread that is not always the case.

Hilary Putnam once argued that a concept it would be irrational to give up is the minimal principle of non-contradiction whereby not all propositions are simultaneously true and not true. A maximal PNC is that no proposition is both true and not true may be subject to challenge at the quantum level where a photon for instance may be both simultaneously a particle and a wave.

Some philosophers have also rejected the Principle of Closure whereby if I know A and know A entails B I know B, Nozick does this in formulating his analysis of knowledge, others have rejected the law of transitivity in response to the repugnant conclusion.

Aaron, it doesnt matter if we later find out the "thing" (x) can not be y. "IF" x can not be y then x can not be y.. It is that simple.Identifying X and Y do not matter in this context.

Why do you think this is the same thing as the bachelor example? The bachelor is defined as "unmarried man" it is just an easy way to say a more complex syllable of words. Instead of always saying "unmarried man" we say bachelor. If we say he is an "unmarried man" he can not be a "married man" a "married man" can not be "unmarried"

This is not correct. All bachelors are unmarried men not all unmarried men are bachelors. In any case I'm not sure what you think I think is the same as the bachelor example.

If something is defined as "not wave" it is true that "not wave" can not be a "wave" if we later find out that "not wave" can be a "wave" it is no longer "not wave".. If something is a particle it was one time thought to be a "not wave" we now know that is not always the case. That does not change the fact that if it was a "not wave" it still can not be a wave.

Does that make sense?

It depends on how you use the word bachelor I suppose. Most people would just use bachelor as an unmarried man.

Please try and focus on the point and not the semantics. I don't care how you are using the word bachelor. It is not relevant to my point that "unmarried man" are by definition" not married". This idea will never be wrong and it is not the same as your hands example because there is some degree of error there.

How would we ever find out? What does "later" have to do with this?

Why should I accept the conclusion?

But semantics *IS* the point! The whole conversation is about the meaning of these words that you're using. Is it true that a "bachelor" is a "tremblepot" just because you've said so?

If I doubt the law of noncontradiction, then the idea might be wrong.

I have focused on your point as well as pointing out where you are mistaken and as Aaron points out this is largely a discussion of definitions so semantics seems to be at issue here.

Explain to me how I can be wrong as to whether I have hands and explain to me how I can't be wrong that all bachelors are unmarried?

If my cognitive faculties are so deceived that I can be wrong with regard to to the question of whether I have hands it seems to me to be possible that I am being deceived as to whether a bachelor is unmarried.

Does being a particle entail not being a wave? Does being a wave entail not being a particle. If so then we have a problem for the law of non contradiction if a photon for instance can be both a wave an a particle simultaneously.