And if that "X is Y" is true is that X is Y then that X is Y is dependent on how we use the word "X". — Michael

This is wrong. "X is Y" is not true just in case X is Y. The words can be used to mean anything you like, and in particular, if "X" and "Y" meant something other than they do now, the truth of "X is Y" would clearly in no way guarantee that X is Y.

For example, if "horse" meant "rabbit," "Horses are rabbits" would be a true sentence, and yet horses would not be rabbits (which is absurd). This is the prejudice that is mistaken.

And if that "horses are equine animals" is true is that horses are equine animals — Michael

Again, this is wrong. Horses are equine animals; this is not because of, or equal to, any words meaning the same thing. Horses are equine animals even if there is no language at all.

What I intend to say is that in those languages where "X" means "Y" the sentence "X is Y" is true. — Michael

This is true. But it does not mean that X is Y, which is where the claim becomes substantive. And it undermines your original point, which was that what it means e.g. to be a horse depends on how people use the word, which is false.

The premise explicitly tells you that the word "horse" is to be understood in a novel way. How much more apparent do I need to make it? — Michael

Is that premise made in English or made-up-English? If the former, then you are wrong that the whole argument is in a pseudo-language, and as I said before only the consequent is. You are therefore switching languages mid-argument, which is equivocation, and so the argument fails.

If the latter, then the 'if' clause is superfluous, since if the language as you present it already has 'horse' and 'rabbit' being equal in meaning, then there is no need to stipulate conditionally that they are. You could simply say, ''horse' means 'rabbit''. But then, if you translate the argument back into regular English, it will not work, because your conclusion will be translated as 'rabbits are rabbits,' which is not what you intended to say.

I haven't switched languages. The entire argument is presented in the constructed language where "horse" means "rabbit". Your reading of the conclusion in English proper is the equivocation. When I conclude that rabbits are horses I am not saying that rabbits are one of two extant subspecies of Equus ferus. This reading of it, and so the subsequent rejection, is misplaced. — Michael

If the whole argument is in a constructed language (which you've never said before, I think because you didn't intend this to be the case), then what relevance does it have to us here? If we're all supposed to speak a different language temporarily, all you've said is that rabbits are rabbits, which means none of your linguistically-motivated arguments go through, since for them to be interesting, they would have to be expressed to us in English as we use it now. It is precisely this attempt that would make the conclusions non-trivial, and this is why you have not said before now that the whole thing is supposed to be in a made-up language.

And it is not equivocation not to use a made-up language rather than English, that's ridiculous, since you've never stipulated until right now that the whole argument isn't in English but in a made-up language. Equivocation happens only within a language with respect to different interpretations of the same symbols.

If your whole case depends on switching what language we're arguing in temporarily, then what is the point of any of this? You're not saying anything substantial about the way words work, and your original point is not made.

When I engage in symbolic logic and say "All As are Bs" you can't reject this by saying "we're speaking English, and in English the letters A and B are different". — Michael

"A" and "B" in this case are variables, which is a different thing entirely.

No, you cannot, since we are speaking English. If you want to make up a new language and present an argument in that language, fine, but it would then have nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here. And obviously switching languages mid-argument, even mid-sentence, is equivocation.

This conditional is true, but only because 'bachelor' actually means 'unmarried man.' It does not transfer over to the 'horse'-'rabbit' case. In fact, to be a bachelor is to be an unmarried man regardless of what the words 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' mean; this is clear from the fact that even if there were no such words, bachelors would still be unmarried men, by definition.

If you do not make that assumption, the argument is invalid. As it stands the argument you continue to present as valid is clearly invalid, and so there must be some prejudice that leads you to think that it is valid. From the discourse it seems to be that you think the use rather than mention of 'P' in a consequent of a conditional must be interpreted according to the linguistic usage you have stipulated, rather than the language as it exists now; but this is nonsensical, since you are using English as it exists now, by definition. Whether you have stipulated that in some other hypothetical language that 'P' means something else does not matter, since you are not, and cannot be, speaking that language, since it doesn't exist. You can make claims about that hypothetical language counterfactually, such as 'In that language, 'TGW is a P' would be a true statement,' which would be true, but you cannot move from this to say, 'In that scenario, TGW would be a P.' For example, I would clearly not be a pig, but still a man.

Consider the example I have already offered: If "P" means "man" and if The Great Whatever is a man then The Great Whatever is a P. This is a valid argument. — Michael

For reference, here is the invalid argument that hinges on a use-mention error.

Yes, Pierre-Normand this hinges on a use-mention error on Michael's part. He is under the impression that a counterfactual claim about a word has consequences for the meaning of the word as it exists in the language now, when he tries to use, rather than mention, it. So he is moving from mention to use, and the argument is invalid -- everyone else sees this but he does not, and I expect this is because of his erroneous philosophical prejudices, something to the effect of 'For any predicate P, P means 'appropriate referent of 'P',' which it does not.

If "P" means "man" and if you are a man then you are a P.

What's wrong with this? — Michael

For anyone interested in this topic still, this argument is a textbook case of a simple use-mention error:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use–mention_distinction

Michael, given that a pig is a certain sort of animal, explain to me how I can become a pig without becoming that sort of animal. You seem to think I could become a pig, without changing into an animal; that is, that I could become a pig, without becoming a pig.

Again, being called a "pig" does not make you a pig; being a certain sort of animal makes you a pig. To be that sort of animal, and to be a pig, are the very same thing.

It's false, is what is wrong with it. If "P" means man and you are a man, then you are a man, and you can be called "P." It does not make you a P. For example, if the word "pig" meant "man," I would not thereby become a pig. I would still be a man, although I could be called "pig," since "pig" would mean "man."

A pig is a certain sort of animal, and I would not become that sort of animal just because I could now be called "pig." To become a pig and to become that sort of animal are the very same thing; and since obviously the latter would not happen, neither would the former. I would simply stay a man, and not be a pig, although a new word, which used to refer to pigs alone, would now refer to men as well, and so I could be called by that word, too. You seem to think this would make me a pig; but it would not, since I would be a man, and not a pig.

There's nothing wrong with this argument. It just doesn't address what I'm saying. I'll paraphrase what I said to John: — Michael

It addresses what you are saying because you have repeatedly denied the conclusion of the argument. So now are you saying you accept it? If there were horses before we called them "horse," it cannot be, as you have claimed, that certain kinds of creatures are horses only because we use the word "horse" in a certain way, since those sorts of creatures were already horses prior to this use. You cannot maintain this conclusion and accept the argument.

So if "horse" means "rabbit" and if Thumper is a rabbit then Thumper is a horse. — Michael

No, this is not true; If "horse" means "rabbit," then Thumper is a rabbit that is the appropriate referent of the word "horse." That does not make him a horse. Thumper is a rabbit, and not a horse -- hopefully we can agree on this much. Now, changing what he was called would not make him a horse -- rather, he would still be a rabbit. The fact that "horse" now means "rabbit" means that he can be called "horse" as well as "rabbit" -- but that does not make him a horse. He is still only a rabbit.

The problem you're having is that you're interpreting the conclusion of the second sentence as "Thumper is the sort of animal that we race in the Grand National", but that's like interpreting the conclusion of the first sentence as "you are a letter". — Michael

If he is a horse, then he must be such an animal, because to be that sort of animal and to be a horse are the very same thing. You cannot have one and not the other.

You seem to think that I'm saying that this animal belongs to the group of equine animals iff we call it "horse". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that equine animals belong to the group "horse" because we use the word "horse" to name the group of equine animals. — Michael

Another way of putting this: to belong to the group of horses just is to belong to the group of equine animals: these are the very same thing. So you cannot say, on the one hand, that an animal is not an equine animal simply because we call it "horse," but on the other, say that it is a horse simply because we call it "horse." This is a contradiction.

It doesn't matter if the name starts with a capital or a small letter or if it refers to an individual or to a group. The logic is the same. — Michael

Of course it matters. Proper names and common nouns are different sorts of words, and the latter are property-denoting while the former aren't. Although I should say even with that said, the way you formulated it is not quite right: you are a Michael only because you are called 'Michael;' but even if you were called 'Andrew,' you would still be Michael, viz. since you are Michael, you would still be yourself even if you were called something different.

You seem to think that I'm saying that this animal belongs to the group of equine animals iff we call it "horse". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that equine animals belong to the group "horse" because we use the word "horse" to name the group of equine animals. — Michael

You said that to be a horse consists of having certain qualities only because we use the word 'horse' in a certain way:

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animals.

Yet there were horses before there were any words at all, and they were still horses in virtue of having those exact same qualities. So you're wrong. Our use of words has no effect on which things are horses. It is not as if what words we use to label animals affects what sorts of animals they are; they were already horses before we called them anything.

Or again, I will put this argument to you, which you still have not addressed:

(1) "Horse" means "equine animal."
(2) Equine animals were equine animals before we called them "horse."
(3) Therefore, equine animals were horses before we called them "horse."

Please explain to me what is wrong with this argument, and do not ignore it again. (2) is clearly true, but to say (2) just is to say (3), since "horse" and "equine animal" are synonyms. Yet you are inconsistent in affirming (2) yet denying (3).

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animal. — Michael

No. Horses were horses, because they had certain characteristics, long before any such word existed.

I am Michael only because I use the word "Michael" to refer to myselt. — Michael

This is true (to an extent -- it has to do with the speech community, not just you), but names are different from common nouns.

My point is that what it means to be X is determined by how we use the word "X". — Michael

It is not. Being a horse is not determined by how we use "horse;" it is determined by having certain physical characteristics.

↪The Great Whatever I'm not saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then rabbits would undergo a biological transformation into an equine animal. I'm saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then to be a horse would be to be a mammal in the family Leporidae. — Michael

To be a horse is to be an equine animal. This is true regardless of what the word "horse" means. Horses were horses before the word "horse" existed.

So your claim is that, if we called rabbits "horses," they would become horses. Prima facie, this claim is absurd. My claim is that they still would be rabbits, but we would call them "horses."

You say your claim rests on the ability to simultaneously invent a nonexistent language and then somehow use it in the same sentence.

Why should I believe your absurd suggestion that rabbits would become horses if we changed what we called them, which in turn is bolstered by this absurd stipulation?

Of course it makes sense. We do it all the time when using symbolic logic. — Michael

This is not symbolic logic. There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. A fortiori you are using no such language.

This is getting ridiculous.

It's not a non-existent language. It exists in my use of it in stating the conclusion. — Michael

There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. You are just using English as it exists now, and making a false claim in it. You are not inventing another language and then using that one in the same sentence. That doesn't even make sense.

If it's valid, which it is, and if the meaning of "horse" is determined by what sort of things we use it to talk about, which it is, then if we decided to the use the word "horse" to talk about rabbits then at that time "horse" would mean "rabbit" and so in that language, at that time, horses are rabbits. — Michael

Fucking...no. Yes, "horse" would mean "rabbit." No, horses would not be rabbits. They would be horses.

That makes no sense. You are using the language as it exists now because you are speaking now. You cannot use a non-existent language.

The validity isn't in question, the soundness is. The conclusion follows from the premises, but the first premise is obviously false, so it doesn't matter.

Holy shit, no. There is no hypocrisy. The "gay" case works because "gay" actually does mean "homosexual," and "rabbit" actually does not mean horse. If you claim this is instead "counterfactual," whatever that means, despite your not presenting the argument that way, then it loses its force, because it does not parallel my argument and so shows no hypocrisy.

No, I'm using the T2 language to claim that horses are rabbits at T2. — Michael

No, you are not, because it is not T2, that language doesn't exist, and you can't use a nonexistent language. You cannot just change the rules of the language as it exists now to make a claim in a future language. You can make a claim about a future language, using the present langaue, as in one of the formulations I list above: but this is not what you are doing. If you were using the language as it existed at T2, it would be T2, but it is not, it is now.

But I'm not making the claim in the language as it is now. As I said before, "horse" means "equine" at T1, and means "rabbit" at T2, where the language at T1 is language as it is now and the language at T2 is a hypothetical future language. The conclusion that at T2 horses are rabbits applies the language at T2, not the language at T1. That's why I accused you of conflation; you interpreted the conclusion using the language at T1. — Michael

You are claiming now, using the English language that horses would be rabbits at T2. There is no question of which language you intend it to be 'about.' It is now, and you are making the claim now in this language. And according to the rules of the language as it is used now, the claim you just made, that rabbits would be horses at T2, is false. Of course rabbits wouldnt be horses -- that's ridiculous. If you want to make a claim specifically about the language as it exists at that time, you can do that truly, such as : "In the language at T2, 'rabbits are horses' would be true" (which is true), or "At T2, rabbits would be the reference of 'horse,'" which is also true but that is not what you are saying. You are instead saying that rabbits would be horses at T2, which is false. And as soon as this confusion is cleared away, the bite you want to have to your position deflates entirely.

I would have thought the implicitness of the "if" was obvious. — Michael

No, because your argument was meant to parallel mine as a reductio, and mine was obviously not counterfactual. So leave out the implicitness, and you will either have an unsound argument, or one that does not make the point you intended to make. Either way, it doesn't work.

Because we are not at such a time, you cannot make the claim in the language as it now is. Rabbits would not be horses. They would be the referent of the word 'horse' in the language as it existed at that time. You are not saying that "in the future language the claim 'rabbits were always horses' would be true," which is true, but rather you are saying that rabbits would always have been horses, which is false, since you are speaking the language as it is now.

The premise "'Horse' means 'rabbit'" is the counterfactual premise. — Michael

No it isn't. A counterfactual premise has the form, "If it were the case that p, then it would be the case that q."

But gays are homosexuals, because "gay" is a synonym of "homosexual." The language as we speak it is not such that "rabbit" is a synonym of "horse." If it were, then in that language as used at a future time we could say something like "rabbits were always horses" and be correct. But we are not at such a time, so we cannot say it, as you are trying to do, because "gay" and "homosexual" actually are synonyms, but "rabbit" and "horse" are not.

What counterfactual argument? You posted an argument with a premise. That premise was that "rabbit" means "horse." It does not; so the argument fails. There was no counterfactual in the argument.

Now please address my argument above as I presented it.

Yes, but that does not mean horses are rabbits. Horses remain horses.

It is not a hypothetical change; it is a premise you used in an argument. The premise is false, so the argument is unsound. My argument used no such false premise.

Now tell me what is wrong with the argument I presented.

"Horse" does not mean "rabbit." Are you crazy?

Exactly the way it worked. When we used the word "gay" to talk about the happy and carefree to be gay was to be happy and carefree. Now we use the word "gay" to talk about homosexuals so to be gay is to be happy and carefree. — Michael

Okay, consider the following.

"Gay" means "homosexual." Homosexuals were already homosexual before the word "gay" was invented. It follows therefore that they were already gay. Please epxlain to me what is wrong with this argument.

I'm no saying that to be an animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the species. I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit and if we use the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals then to be gay is to be homosexual and if we use the word "gay" to refer to the happy and carefree then to be gay is to be happy and carefree. — Michael

But this is wrong. Consider: "gay" means "homosexual." If it is true that if we call something "gay," then it is gay, it follows that if we call something "gay," then it is homosexual. But this is refuted by your own examples, since we called things "gay" that were not homosexual

So you think that by inventing the word 'gay,' you change what it is to be gay? How does that even work?

Here's a question: since to be any kind of animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the particular species, were there any animals in existence before people called them anything? If so, how is that possible on your account?

And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits are, and were already, horses. — Michael

No, it does not. Rabbits were never horses. That's absurd.

This is like saying that if you change the meaning of 'gay' as a linguistic community you have changed which people are the appropriate referents of this word, not what gays are, or what it is to be gay. — Michael

But thats true! You haven't changed what it is to be gay, ie. homosexual, by inventing a word! Are you crazy?

No, I've already explained this. If you coin a new word 'gay' that means 'homosexual,' it follows that homosexual people were already gay before the coinage of the term. This follows form the fact that to be gay is to be homosexual, and they were already homosexual.

You cannot make horses members of the rabbit family unless it is possible to be a rabbit and a horse simultaneously. If you change the meaning of 'horse' as a linguistic community, you have changed which animals are the appropriate referents of which words, not what horses are, or what it is to be a horse. This is your misunderstanding -- you think 'horse' means something like, 'referent of 'horse''. But this is not what it means, as shown by the fact that horses don't need to be, and usually aren't, the referent of 'horse' at all. Rather, 'horse' means a certain kind of animal.

Yes, and at T2 to be a horse is to be a member of the rabbit family. — Michael

No, at T2 to be the referent of 'horse' is to be a rabbit. To be a horse is still -- to be a horse, not a rabbit!

So it's a misunderstanding to think that if I call a rabbit a 'horse,' it doesn't become a horse? Consider that this is literally the position you are defending.

I don't know how much simpler to put this. If at T1 "A" refers to Xs and if at T2 "A" refers to ¬Xs then at T2 ¬Xs are As. If at T1 "horse" refers to equines and it at T2 "horse" refers to rabbits then that T2 rabbits are horses. — Michael

But this is wrong. Horses don't stop being horses when we stop calling them 'horse.' They are still horses. This is because to be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal, and they are still that kind of animal.

Rabbits don't become horses because we change their names, which is what you are proposing. Consider how ridiculous that is.

As I said before, what it means to be gay (or a horse) depends on how we use the word. If we change the way we use the word then we change what it means to be gay (or a horse). — Michael

It does not depend on how we use the word. To be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal, which is possible even if there are no words. Horses were in existence before language. This is impossible to square on your view, and it is insane. Nor does it change when we change the words -- as I've said, your position literally commits you to claiming we can turn people gay by calling them 'gay.'

Those things that weren't horses according to the old use of the word — Michael

There is no such thing as being a horse 'according to the use of a word.' They were horses -- period, simpliciter. And they were so long before anyone called them anything. They were not the referent of the word 'horse' -- but then, the point is that 'horse' does not mean, 'referent of 'horse'' as you seem to think -- it means, a certain kind of animal.

Saying that Thumper isn't a horse even after the change in how we use the word "horse" because he doesn't satisfy the old use is like saying that homosexuals aren't gay even after the change in how we use the word "gay" because they don't satisfy the old use. — Michael

If Thumper were a horse, he would have a long face, and a mane, and a horse cock. But he doesn't so he's not a horse. That's not going to change if we start using 'horse' to refer to rabbits. He will still be a rabbit, just a rabbit that is the appropriate referent of 'horse.' This does not change him into a horse.

On the contrary, homosexuals were already gay, even before the new use of the word. This is obvious from the fact that to be gay just is to be homosexual, and they were ex hypothesi already homosexual.