On 6/5/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > My argument here was that the burden of
> proof is on you to show that
> > > a) this pluralist view exists
> >
> > You can check that the pluralist view exists
> for example starting
> > here:
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification>
> > The "external links" at the bottom of the
> page are also interesting.
> >
>
> I don't argue that people don't support it, I
> argue that it has no
> distinct existance aside from "mass", and so is
> not correct.
I suggest you actually read the book, especially
the formal semantics. Or read some of Quine's
stuff (I'm sorry I don't have references to
hand).
I've read the first chapter of McKay's, and found that the author
confused several issues. For example, he states that Alice is not a
shipmate on her own, when she clearly is. She is shipmate of Bryce and
Carol, etc. because she is in the same group as them, and not a
shipmate of David and Erica, because they are of a different group.
Two things regarding the suggestion. First, it seems that you think
that I don't understand how it works. I think that I do understand how
it works, it's just that I disagree with it. Second, I'm not arguing
with Quine, or McKay, because sadly they don't subscribe to this list.
I'm arguing with you and xorxes. I expect you to be able to argue
against my position as well as Quine or McKay would, otherwise you
really have no business arguing for or believing in their position.
If I show you to be wrong, you'll may just end up falling back on "oh,
well, that doesn't mean that Quine was wrong".