Re: Logic As Formal Semiotic


LAFS.  Note 2


A Pragmatic Frittata

BS: and Tarski would not say that the sentences (e.g. of cat biology)
    for which we have a formal model are themselves about that model.

JA: Yes, but Tarski was a professed (confessed?) nominalist, and thus
    his "official position" is lacking in a certain usability when it
    comes to discussing how realities impact on our representations,
    which they strangely persist in doing no matter what we say or
    think about it.

| PORTIA  Good sentences, and well pronounced.
| NERISSA  They would be better if well followed.
| Merchant of Venice, 1.2.10-11

BS: If we have a sentence in a biology textbook,
    say "blood cells are non-nucleated", then is
    this about cells in reality (as I, and I guess
    common sense, would assume) or about cells in
    the biology model?

JA: If by "about" we mean something like "applies to" or "true of",
    is there any harm in saying that the sentences are about both?

| PORTIA  If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do,
| chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottages princes' palaces.
| It is a good divine that follows his own instructions.  I can easier
| teach twenty what were good to be done than to be one of the twenty
| to follow mine own teaching.  The brain may devise laws for the blood,
| but a hot temper leaps o'er a cold decree ...
| Merchant of Venice, 1.2.12-19

inquiry e-lab:
zhongwen wp:
wp review:

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 13:06:46 UTC