Message-Id: <m0pOgwq-0000Q8C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 1994 01:05:55 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      TECH quantity abstracts: quote
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1575
Lines: 33

The following out of context excerpt from soc.culture.scientists struck
me as revealing of the nature of "ni" abstraction.  "ni" is the metric
that the respondent is referring to.  We may not always be able to
define the scale or the metric value, but "ni" existing in the language
implies that every relationship have an at least theoretical
quantifiability to that relationship.

>>#   (2)  That there is a metric which can be applied to any proposition
>>#      which will compute a number telling you how close that proposition
>>#      is to such objective truth.
>>
>>Your formulation is a straw man.  There is no requirement that one be
>>able to "compute a number telling you how close" a proposition is to
>>objective truth in order to be able to tell that some propositions
>>are closer to truth than others are.
>
>
>It is no straw man.  I did not require that you be able to actually
>compute the number.  I only required that there exist some metric --
>some objective standard as to what it means for one proposition to be
>closer to objective truth than another proposition.  To talk about one
>thing being closer to objective truth than another presupposes that
>there is a measure of closeness to objective truth.  Without such a
>measure all of your arguments on closeness to the truth are just
>meaningless banter.

Comments?

lojbab
----
lojbab                           Note new address:    lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273