[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
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".
> > > and is correct,
> >
> > Whether the singularist or the pluralist view
> is the "correct" one is perhaps
> > an open question, there is debate about it
> among linguists, logicians
> > and philosophers. For us mere Lojbanists all
> that matters is whether it
> > can work, and so far it has proven itself
> quite well.
>
> It seems to be a niche theory that hasn't
> recieved much mainstream publicity:
>
>
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22plural+quantification%22
>
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22plural+predication%22
>
> 1000 and 400 results respectively.
Correctness - or, here, just adequacy -- is nota
matter up for popular vote. The adequacy of
pluralist work is demonstrated (in part because
it is exactly the same as singularist, but that
is another matter).
Before you correct me for using what would be fallacious reasoning,
please have a look at what I'm replying to. Above, xorxes appears to
argue that because there is much debate, neither side is right or
wrong.
> However, this steers the discussion away: you
> seem to be saying "I
> don't have to answer your objections nor offer
> explanations because
> that's the job of other people. If they can't
> do it, then I don't see
> why we should bother. Therefore my position is
> as correct as yours,
> regardless of the arguments you offer to the
> contrary, at least until
> those other people come up with a solution."
Surely we can decide on this issue ourselves --
maybe with a little study, but in a fairly short
time.
Exactly.
> If you take on a position, you should be
> prepared to defend it just as
> well as any other person. If you can't present
> explanations and
> arguments for the position yourself, then why
> do you support it?
Well, two questions -- could you follow (now -- I
know you can catch up) a complete demonstration
of the adequacy of pluralism and would you
recognize the significance of the demonstration
once it was given.
Probably, and yes. The same could be asked by me: could you follow a
demonstration of the inadequacy or incorrectness of pluralism, and
would you abandon your position if it was proven incorrect?
Unless I were sure of those
two points I can't imagine the point of giving
the complete explanation. And, of course, if I
were sure on these issues, I would be better
advised to point you to the demonstrations
already given than to try to reproduce them
myself. xorxes has given you the benefit of a
doubt by pointing you to the existing literature.
A book that hasn't been published yet doesn't count. And again, you're
making the assumption that I don't understand.
I'm not really asking for a full explanation. I can write pages and
pages on the subject of "mass vs. bunch-individually", but I'm also
capable of summing it up in a couple of paragraphs or examples. On the
other hand, no summaries, explanations, or demonstrations have been
given of "bunch-together". Two were proposed, and I pointed out the
clear deficiencies of both.
> Because it was written in a book, and because
> you need it to be true
> in order to support your position in this
> argument of ours? Answer
> this honestly.
Because, from my point of view it offers the best
solution to a number of problems in Lojban. The
solutions are equally available within the
singularist position, but are less likely to be
used because the long habit of singularists is
set theory and that does not allow for
distributive predication on sets.
I think I'm an example of the singularist position, and really, I
don't want to have much to do with mathematical sets. I like
"bunches". Which problems are solved by the pluralist view?
> >
> > > and b) that Lojban uses this pluralist
> view.
> >
> > Lojban belongs to its speakers. As long as
> some speakers use it, Lojban
> > can in a sense be said to use it, and some
> speakers do use it, I can vouch
> > for that. If most speakers decide they won't
> use it, it will perhaps be more
> > correct to say that Lojban doesn't use it.
> It's too early to tell at this point,
> > but if I had to bet, I'd vote on yes.
>
> The argument is about the official version of
> Lojban. This is why I
> make the distinction between "my version" and
> "the current/your
> version". If we go this route, then everyone is
> right based on how
> much support they supposedly have (even a
> single supporter seems to be
> enough), and not how reasonable or sensible
> their interpretations are.
Well, everyone is right and also wrong. Lojban
doesn't use either view -- and can't as now
constituted. But either one could be added and
would autoimatically add the other as correct.
> >
> > > Until you do this, you should not attempt
> to use
> > > this pluralist view in Lojban.
> >
> > Thanks for the advice.
> >
>
> I chose to bring the subject of my inner {ro},
> and my {le} & {lo} up
> on the mailing list before I dived in and
> started using them. I don't
> think that it's unreasonable to ask you to do
> the same regarding your
> plural quantification, especially if I ask you
> to avoid using it
> within this discussion of ours.
But you came in claiming that only your usage was
correct and have never supported even that it was
correct (it certainly is not how Lojban now works
and it seems to be based on an error about that)
let alone that only it is correct. At worst,
xorxes seems to have matched you point for point.
What usage?
The singularist view is much more established than the pluralist view.
In fact, I allow and agree with plural predication: {ci lo ci cribe}
is a plural predicate. It's just that I disagree with certain usages
of plural predicates.
The last two points that xorxes has given I've refuted as inadequate.
> > > What surrounds the building?
> > > (The students.)
> > > Does each student surround the building?
> > > (No.)
> > > Then what is it that surrounds the
> building?
> > > (The students.)
> > > So you mean the students together?
> > > (No, the students.)
> > > ...
> >
> > The last one should be: "Yes, the students do
> it together."
> >
>
> Your definition of "together" seems very
> strange. No definition described at
>
> http://www.answers.com/together?ff=1
>
> seems to cover it, rather, they indicate that
> "together" is used to
> describe masses of things, or reciprocal
> relationships.
Then I fear that answers.com has missed
something. This seems a perfectly natural
locution.
Yes, well, it seems that most English dictionaries have missed
something. Either that, or you've introduced something that isn't
there. My point was that xorxes should perhaps try to explain what he
means by "together", because he clearly isn't using it in any sense
that I (and the ever-authoritative dictionaries) understand the word
to mean.
> > > I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I
> understand your position
> > > perfectly. You think that saying "the
> students" frees you from
> > > implying that they're a group. I recognize
> this, and I assert that
> > > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word
> "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the
> > > students" does not mean that "the students"
> does not refer to a group
> > > of students..
> >
> > Because you assert it?
> >
>
> Because you offer no evidence to the contrary.
> I ask you what "the
> students" refers to, if not the students each,
> nor the mass of them.
> You offer no explanation. Here, I'll offer some
> rough explanations:
>
> "The 50 students (individually)" refers to each
> entity, that is, we
> have a set of 50 entities that are students in
> mind.
Well, insisting that it is a set from the get-go
prejudices the issue. If I were to have a
problem with where you are going, I would start
right here: we have no set in mind, just 50
students.
Set as in bunch.
> If we say that
> "the students run", we mean that it is true
> that each student of this
> set of 50 runs. If any of the students do not
> run, the statement is
> false.
Well, this is a fine point, but not worth arguing
here. I'll assume you mean it in its most
particular sense.
> "Together the students" refers to the students
> as a collective entity.
It does not obviously look that way; what is you
evidence for this claim? "The group of students"
is a more clear cut case of a collective entity
-- and even it is open to question.
My evidence is the way in which every dictionary I've seen interprets
"together". My proof is the insensibility and inability to explain or
elaborate on any other perspective.
> Sometimes, this collective entity can be seen
> as a "crowd" or a "mob".
> When people look at groups of people, they
> never have trouble
> recognizing that this amalgamation is an entity
> on its own - that is,
> they see a forest, and not 10000 trees, they
> see a book, and not 500
> pages. "The forest is burning", and not "3542
> trees are burning".
Sure, if you talk about forests then you talk
about forests, but there is no problem in taking
the small picture and commenting that so far 3542
trees have burnt.
Sure. Now how does the pluralist view, the "bunch-together" view, fit into this?
> So
> when we say "together the students surround the
> building", we mean
> this thing that is a mass of students surrounds
> the building.
>
> Can you offer something similar? It can be as
> crude as you'd like to
> start, I just want /something/.
Unfortunately, the response is to cite the same
expression and note that it does not have to mean
another object over and above the students.
I think you've confused two things. There is nothing "over and above"
the students, and I never said that there had to be. There is,
however, something that is composed of the students.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.