Are you claiming that ducks do not have anything in common with each other that they do not have wit[h] other kinds of birds? Or that they do not have anything in common with other kinds of birds that they do not have with mammals, reptiles or insects. — Janus
What's more puzzling; attributing meaning that is possible, or attributing meaning that is not? The notion of "generic" is 17th century. Aristotle lived two thousand years prior. — creativesoul
"Ducks lay eggs" is not true. That's plain and simple.
It is called "true" as a result of our leniency towards such ambiguity. Most folk know that only female ducks lay eggs and that not all female ducks do. — creativesoul
What's more puzzling; attributing meaning that is possible, or attributing meaning that is not? The notion of "generic" is 17th century. Aristotle lived two thousand years prior.
— creativesoul
You seem to be confusing a formal analysis of generics with their use. From the SEP article on generics, "By 30 months, children understand that generics tolerate exceptions (Gelman and Raman 2003)". Is it your claim that people couldn't understand this in Aristotle's day? Or that generics have only featured in language since the 17th century? — Andrew M
"Ducks lay eggs" is not true. That's plain and simple.
It is called "true" as a result of our leniency towards such ambiguity. Most folk know that only female ducks lay eggs and that not all female ducks do.
— creativesoul
There's nothing ambiguous about it. It is called true because most folk think it is true. If you disagree, then why not test your hypothesis and ask a few people whether they think it is true and why.
As far as I can tell, you're just denying that generics are a real feature of natural languages. — Andrew M
Certainly sounds like it! So, what are you claiming then? — Janus
I agree that "Ducks lay eggs" is called true, because most people think(believe) it is true. — creativesoul
Nonsense, all meaning consists in interpretation... — Janus
I've already adequately argued my case without subsequent relevant and/or valid objections. — creativesoul
Explain to me exactly what's being interpreted again? — creativesoul
Explain to me exactly what's being interpreted again?
— creativesoul
What is being interpreted is a text. Of course texts are meaningful, but that doesn't entail that any text must have just one literal meaning. So, of course interpretation will inevitably come into play. it surprises me that you apparently don't understand that rudimentary fact. — Janus
One author, one meaning... or else equivocation — creativesoul
One author, one meaning... or else equivocation. What is a literal meaning? Typical rhetorical drivel. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.