[Here 'Alexander' is the name of a sherry, and 'Gush' is the name of a brandy.] Or: "Alexander has just lost 3%." Haven't a clue what this means? When you find my entry on states of affairs at the Stanford site, go to the supplemental article I wrote on biosemantics.
[Here 'Alexander' is the name of a sherry, and 'Gush' is the name of a brandy.] Or: "Alexander has just lost 3%." Haven't a clue what this means? When you find my entry on states of affairs at the Stanford site, go to the supplemental article I wrote on biosemantics.Tags: Critical Thinking And Everyday ArgumentEducation Personal Statement Graduate SchoolWhere To Place Thesis In IntroductionBalance Trade Research PaperWind Power Research PaperEssays For The GedFunding Writing DissertationAqualisa Quartz Simply A Better Shower Case Study Analysis
2) In this case, you would be trading on the facility all competent speakers have of knowing when a word is being used as a name for a man/woman.
3) You have to embed your choice of word in a sentence.
So, on your theory I can't understand their sentences. We don't need to be acquainted with the entity designated by a denoting term to be able to use it to make true sentences.
Nice try; but: 1) I specifically did not confine my remarks to acquaintances, I allowed for other ways of knowing who/what a name stood for.
Alternatively, you might take a look at John Post's excellent, clear-headed intro to, and defense of, Millikan's view in his little book "Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction." Post defends what I called hypothesis (H1) above, that false sentences denote nothing, but true sentences denote real states of affairs (facts). The circuit's being energized is a necessary condition of the bulb being on., hence the view they allegedly support cannot claim them as such in a non-question-begging manner.
I can give many other examples: The truck's being heavily loaded caused the bring [bridge? I have no doubt there are millions of nominalisations of this sort; but apart from padding your response out, I am not sure what that proves.
You might not even recognise it as a name of a man. And it would be no use responding that this is not a well-formed name; except in extreme cases, we have no rules for wff names.
If I now type 'K Mart', and you were from somewhere where this store had never been heard of, you would not understand any sentence in which it occurred.
There is a well-know problem with truth-functional Frege/Russell logic, the logic taught in symbolic logic classes throughout the world these days.
The problem is that it is a failure at accounting for the logic of the words "if", "or", "not" and "and" in ordinary language. But it is well-known among logicians that the Frege/Russell logic can validate fallacious arguments.