tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post872460775291292177..comments2024-03-28T02:14:30.875-07:00Comments on Sardonic comment: Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04466234582441270750noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-29543316532811911612020-07-01T21:07:28.632-07:002020-07-01T21:07:28.632-07:00Paternity testing with dogs is really a blossoming...Paternity testing with dogs is really a blossoming group. Over the past decade much longer than that, Typically all these genetics of untold numbers of dogs occur looked at, Whether to pick which develops the dogs are part of, Or perhaps even, Similar to Petunia, To look for it is partially health problems. Remember, though, Moses and moreover two added birkenstock celtics built advisors advise naturally that our pet genetic makeup information mill having in addition feral, And they are calling it to be reined in.. <br><br>Perceived on the neighbors strictly in view that"Simon's" This excellent Anchorage milestone seems to have good-looking wide ranging displays looking over make dinner inlt, Develop Susitna as well as the {<b><i><a href="https://www.cheapjordanshoesaleonline.com" rel="nofollow">Cheap Jordan Shoes For Men</a></i></b>} ak distance. Until {<b><i><a href="https://www.newyeezyshoessale.com" rel="nofollow">New Yeezy Boost 350</a></i></b>} this traditional retro united states {<b><i><a href="https://www.outletmkonlinesale.com" rel="nofollow">Michael Kors Outlet Sale</a></i></b>} barbq is considered artfully portion high top {<b><i><a href="https://www.mkbagsoutletssale.com" rel="nofollow">MK Outlet</a></i></b>} good excellent USDA top good {<b><i><a href="https://www.outletcoachsstoreonline.com" rel="nofollow">Coach Outlet Online Store</a></i></b>} old cheeseburger, Healthy {<b><i><a href="https://www.cheapyeezyshoesale.com" rel="nofollow">Cheap Yeezy Shoes For Sale</a></i></b>} as {<b><i><a href="https://www.outletmksalestore.com" rel="nofollow">Cheap MK Bags</a></i></b>} well as, revolutionary fish and shellfish simply because 1978. Enjoy a regular meal, Evening, Weekend break brunch, Maybe a special work or super delightful point in time within your popular, Encouraging and {<b><i><a href="https://www.jordanreleasescheap.com" rel="nofollow">New Jordan Releases 2020</a></i></b>} / or large kitchen.. <br><br>The type of Budleigh Salterton Pebble pads, Information on 30m dense, Are very well subjected around the clfs gulf of the city. These document a pink rough conglomerate, Improperly cemented though with a good Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-13811034526196712862017-08-19T00:43:18.370-07:002017-08-19T00:43:18.370-07:00nice post
Tips Mengatasi Kistanice post<br /><a href="http://jualherbal.id/tips-mengatasi-kista" rel="nofollow">Tips Mengatasi Kista</a> sena nabilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09424258106271201408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-13363982404081160452014-06-21T21:45:03.588-07:002014-06-21T21:45:03.588-07:00Meanings, insofar as they can be expressed as defi...Meanings, insofar as they can be expressed as definitions, for Quine seem to be partial translation manuals from a language to itself, and the poor identity conditions of meaning are a result of the fact that "incompatible" translation manuals can agree on all stimulus-synonymous equivalences. So the conditions under which one observes a rabbit are identical with the conditions under which one observes an undetached rabbit part. Quine's tendency to eliminate talk of meanings is ultimately pragmatic: to reweave the web in light of new observations we can improve our powers of prediction and control by shifting from an old auto-translation manual to another, and insofar as this is the case, such a shift is rational. If meanings exist as determinate entities which are fixed and unalterable, such a shift would not be possible, much less rational. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04762530848993174667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-87425194767710745132014-06-17T20:42:51.282-07:002014-06-17T20:42:51.282-07:00PPS
And another thought which perhaps makes sense...PPS<br /><br />And another thought which perhaps makes sense of both Quine’s quote from ‘Two dogmas’ and his aged paean to Popper. Here’s a way to reconstruct Quine’s argument. <br /><br />1) For anything to have a meaning in any serious sense it must have an empirical meaning, that is to say verification-conditions. <br />2) But individual sentences do not have verification conditions (Quine/ Duhem)<br />3) So if anything were to have meaning in a serious sense, it would have to be an entire theory. (’The unit of empirical significance is the whole of science')<br />4) But experience cannot confirm – that is verify – entire theories (Popper) <br />5) So NOTHING has a meaning in any serious sense. <br /><br />This gives us meaning-eliminativism via 1) verifcationism wrt meanings, 2) Quine/Duhem wrt to the non-existent verification-conditions of sentences, 3) holistic verificationism as to-be-dismissed fall-back position for the reality of meanings and 4) the Popperian rejection of theory confirmation. <br /><br />Since meaning-eliminativism is absurd (some things mean something) and points 2) & 4) are correct, the way to reject the conclusion is to reject premise 1). Utterances don’t have to have verification-conditions in order to be meaningful in some serious sense. <br />Charles Pigdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01131765562671298571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-18064022268165473302014-06-17T20:05:58.020-07:002014-06-17T20:05:58.020-07:00PS. Another thought.
Of course one might reason...PS. Another thought. <br /><br />Of course one might reason as follows. <br />1) Meaning has to be molecular to account for our capacity to manufacture new but meaningful expressions. <br />2) Epistemology has to be holistic because of the Quine/Duhem thesis. <br />3) Therefore epistemic theories of sentence-meaning are radically mistaken.<br /><br />This seems fine to me but it presumably was NOT what Quine had in mind. <br /><br />Could Quine have been thinking something along the following lines?<br /><br />1) Meaning to be a respectable a concept would have to have an empirical analysis. <br />2) An empirical analysis of meaning would have to be holistic. (Quine/Duhem)<br />3) But meaning has to be molecular to account for our capacity to manufacture new but meaningful expressions.<br />4) Therefore meaning cannot be given an empirical analysis.<br />5) Therefore meaning is not a respectable concept and ought to be dispensed with. <br /><br />This reconstruction would make meaning holism (or holistic verifcationism) a way-station on the road to meaning eliminativism, but not Quine’s final destination. <br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Charles Pigden (That Popper/Quine post was really interesting!) <br />Charles Pigdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01131765562671298571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-15447706521894356822014-06-17T20:03:39.516-07:002014-06-17T20:03:39.516-07:00Dear Professor Putnam.
Isn't there one quote w...Dear Professor Putnam.<br />Isn't there one quote which at least suggests meaning holism rather than a peculiar kind of meaning eliminativism?' 'The unit of empirical significance is the whole of science'. If empirical significance comes in units then presumably there is such a thing. And if the unit in question is the whole of science doesn't this suggest holism, at least about empirical significance, if not about other kinds of meaning (which are perhaps ready for the chop)?<br />Regards<br />Charles Pigden Charles Pigdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01131765562671298571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010406940823317481.post-76440258198755232392014-06-16T11:38:07.938-07:002014-06-16T11:38:07.938-07:00Very important topic.
Hilary Putnam: "I have...Very important topic.<br /><br />Hilary Putnam: "I have already explained why large bodies of theory are not confirmed by observation alone, ... Quine does tell us that given background beliefs, we can justify many statements deductively, and given probability theory and the like, sometimes probabilistically."<br /><br />Amen! Two observed facts can produce a ‘line’ of truths. Many observed facts can form a ‘network’ of truths. Every truth (observed or not) which is produced by the ‘network’ can be the ‘evidence’ to support or reject a new theory. A single truth is only a member of a huge truth-‘network’. The science is judged by the network. Thus, most of the ‘evidence’ needs not to be an observed fact.<br /><br /><br />Hilary Putnam: "… communication (speaking with members of one’s community as well as translation of alien languages) is possible without positing such entities as “meanings”, ..."<br /><br /> I have a major problem with this statement. What does ‘meanings’ mean? What is ‘communication’? Is making love a ‘communication’? What is the ‘meaning’ of making love? Enjoyable act? A ripe? Will produce a baby? <br />The above statement is nonsense. Rejecting ‘meanings’ in communication (of any kind) is ever worse nonsense.<br />Tienzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842156512465678309noreply@blogger.com