Re: New version of URI Declarations [Usage scenarios]

Pat Hayes scripsit:

> Well, this illustrates the problem, seems to me. Suppose I accept 
> your claim that your URI denotes the moon, so that when I use it I am 
> also referring to the same moon. But I want to point out that you 
> said something false about the moon. Under your proposal, this is 
> impossible. I can't say that, because by calling these assertions a 
> 'declaration', they have been removed from the domain of discussion. 

So they have, but that's unavoidable.  If we take the predicates "is a
natural body", "orbits the Earth", and one more that I can't formulate
exactly but is meant to exclude captured meteoroids if any there be,
then these *define* the moon.  If you contradict any of them, you are not
talking about the moon any more.  (Another basis system could be given,
such "occupied point P at time T" for appropriate choices of space and
time scales; it matters not.)

Note that none of these are essential properties in the Kripkean sense
I was using before; essential properties are not necessary as long as we
confine ourselves to the actual world and don't worry about contrafactual

However, once the moon is properly defined (= distinguished from all
other objects to the extent possible or required), I can then make any
number of assertions about it, any of which you may contradict, of course.

> Why should it be that by using a name correctly, given your 
> intentions for using it, that I must therefore agree with everything 
> you say about it? 

Not everything, only the assertions in the declaration (of identity).

What has four pairs of pants, lives             John Cowan
in Philadelphia, and it never rains   
but it pours?                         
        --Rufus T. Firefly

Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 15:06:54 UTC