That looks similar to Kant's definition of analyticity. Quine's objection refers to Carnap's definition, not Kant's. Putnam criticized Quine's objection for mixing these two different definitions.

At the least, it might be worth setting out what you take Quine's objection to be and how this overcomes it.

As it stands, "expressions of language that are stipulated to be true"makes it appear that is saying that it is analytic if he says it is analytic.

I think that I may have overcome every possible objection. Quine didn't seem to understand that facts are analytic. I am stipulating that every element of the correct model of the current world (expressed using language) <is> analytic. This means that the only things excluded require sense data from the sense organs to confirm their truth. That {cats} <are> {animals} is an axiom of this model of the world. The key thing that Quine did not understand is that the term {bachelor} is simply defined by its constituents {male} & {adult} & {~married}.

Quine didn't seem to understand that facts are analytic — PL Olcott

:worry:
I'll leave you to it.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html Quine went on and on about how he could not understand that bachelors are unmarried. Right at the beginning of the paper is the confused view that facts are not analytic. With my redefinition of the analytic/synthetic distinction this nonsense is quashed. Any truth that can be fully expressed using language is stipulated to be analytic. That dogs are animals merely stipulates a relation between two classes.

An analytic expression x is any expression of language verified as completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or ~x) is derived by applying truth preserving operations to other expressions of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing the semantic meaning of terms. — PL Olcott

Problems with analytic expressions are possible tautology. They tend to repeat what is already contained in the subject of the expressions e.g. "A bachelor is an unmarried male." viz. they don't increase or add new knowledge.

Problems with analytic expressions are possible tautology. They tend to repeat what is already contained in the subject of the expressions e.g. "A bachelor is an unmarried male." viz. they don't increase or add new knowledge. — Corvus

All of the knowledge of the actual world is defined as the stipulated meaning of terms and stipulated relations between terms in an inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology specified as Rudolf Carnap / Montague grammar meaning postulates. The term Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean: Adult(x) & Male(x) & ~Married(x) defined in terms of the constituent parts that comprise it.

All of the knowledge of the actual world is defined as the stipulated meaning of terms and stipulated relations between terms in an inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology specified as Rudolf Carnap / Montague grammar meaning postulates. The term Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean: Adult(x) & Male(x) & ~Married(x) defined in terms of the constituent parts that comprise it. — PL Olcott

Still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't add any new knowledge or facts into the concept unless it was used with the real world situations or observations.

Still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't add any new knowledge or facts into the concept unless it was used with the real world situations or observations. — Corvus

It doesn't add any new knowledge the same way that dictionaries and encyclopedias do not add any new knowledge. The purpose is not to add any new knowledge, it is to mathematically formalize existing knowledge. The Cyc project is named on the basis that it is an en-cyc-lopedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc — PL Olcott

That looks an interesting project. :ok:

Yes it is. It is the largest AI project in the world and I have been following its progress for decades. They have 1000 labor years invested in this project.

But what would be the point of the formalised analytic data, if it is only dictionary nature unable to interact with the external world events and inputs?

With a complete model of the actual world a True(L, x) predicate could be created. This system could for example get on social media and find all the lies and prove that they are lies.

Cool. What program language are you using for creating the AI system?
Any data structure in hand for the project?

I am hypothesizing a formal system containing the sum total of all analytic general knowledge. The Cyc Project already does this for a tiny fraction and it took them 1000 labor years. To makes things simple I define {analytic} as any expression of language that can be verified as true entirely on the basis of other expressions of language.

Sure. But we can see also Quine's point that analytic expressions are meaningless, because the meanings of the words change through time. And most of all, there is no logical explanation why words have the meanings.

For example, the word bachelor's meaning "an unmarried adult male", Quine asks who on earth gave that meaning to bachelor, and why? Meanings of words are totally contingent and changeable. A single words can have also multiple meanings too which adds to the confusion. Hence without the empirical perception which reflects the situation, analytic words themselves have no meanings.

But we can see also Quine's point that analytic expressions are meaningless, because the meanings of the words change through time. And most of all, there is no logical explanation why words have the meanings. — Corvus

Finite strings are assigned semantic meanings in the same way that 5 is assigned to the value x in BASIC: 100 let x = 5

The CYC project uses 128-but GUID integers to reference each unique sense meaning. If they change over time a brand new GUID is created to reference the new meaning.

In a BASIC program when at line 100 we assign 5 to x like this 100 let x = 5, then we know that the variable x contains the value of 5. If we disagree then we are simply wrong.

It is the same way when semantic meanings are assigned to arbitrary finite strings.
∀x ∈ ("Bachelor(x)" ≡ "Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ ¬Married(x)")

Tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it is a mammal. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

The stipulated relations between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings is 100% of the whole process that stipulates that finite strings have specific meanings. No one has authority to do this. We are merely following the arbitrary conventions that were mutually agreed upon long ago.

This is more clear when we understand that the above finites strings of {"Bachelor", "Male", "Adult", "¬Married"} are totally different across different human languages.

This is more clear when we understand that the above finites strings of {"Bachelor", "Male", "Adult", "¬Married"} are totally different across different human languages. — PL Olcott

Yes, but Quine might ask, what about in the case of, when a married woman claims that she is a Bachelor, and you ask how is it possible? She replies "My names is a Bachelor."

es, but Quine might ask, what about in the case of, when a married woman claims that she is a Bachelor, and you ask how is it possible? She replies "My names is a Bachelor." — Corvus

That is an idiomatic reference that does not pertain to the same GUID.

That is an idiomatic reference that does not pertain to the same GUID. — PL Olcott

I think his point is that an analytic system must be able to interact with the external world input data for it to be useful.

I think his point is that an analytic system must be able to interact with the external world input data for it to be useful. — Corvus

Only in the sense that facts can be looked up in an encyclopedia and encyclopedias can be updated with new facts. Actual interaction with the world that requires sense input from the sense organs is specifically excluded from the body of analytic knowledge. That dogs exist is analytic. That there is a small black dog in my living room right now is synthetic.

That there is a small black dog in my living room right now is synthetic. — PL Olcott

SO, on the presumption that there is indeed a small black dog in your living room right now, and the view that facts are analytic, does it follow that it is not a fact that there is a small black dog in your living room right now? And this despite there being a small black dog in your living room right now?

Not following that.

If you cannot determine the truth of an expression of language entirely on the basis of other expressions of language then the expression is not analytic.

I'm asking if it is a fact that there is a small black dog in your living room right now, given that there is a small black dog in your living room right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction When define analytic the way that I did then every possible objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction ceases to exist. If I verify that there is a little black dog in my living room by seeing this dog with my eyes, then this is more than an expression of language thus no longer analytic. It is synthetic.

But is it a fact?

If there is a small black dog in my living room then this is a true fact.

Ok, and it is synthetic. So there are synthetic facts?

SO facts divide into synthetic and analytic?

Quine didn't seem to understand that facts are analytic. — PL Olcott

There are synthetic facts, too. So what is it that Quine did not understand?

There are synthetic facts, too. So what is it that Quine did not understand? — Banno

I don't know but he convinced a majority of philosophers that the analytic / synthetic distinction is problematic. He seemed to think that nothing about anything can be known without physical experience. He might not have known enough math to be challenged to provide the physical experience of the square root of two.

Ok.

So the objections that you point to in the title of this thread - what exactly are they?