I didn't use existence as a predicate. And neither would have Russell. Existence in predicate calculus is specified via the existential quantifier. I can't put in the formal logic notation for that here, so I just wrote it out in English as "There exists an x". When you write it out in predicate calculus, the "There exists an" is written as a backwards "E" instead, and the universal quantifier "for all" is written as an upside-down "A".I believe he would say existence is not a real predicate, — 3017amen
In any case, nothing in Russell's project implied propositions should be tautologies. Quite to the contrary. He just wanted to be able to translate the meaning of all propositions into formal logic, and consequently assert that all propositions have truth values. — Douglas Alan
I didn't use existence as a predicate. — Douglas Alan
With all due respect, I think you did. You said S (x) — 3017amen
I think he was at one time, then basically discovered it's limitations — 3017amen
If you prefer to limit yourself to the ordinary language which is always imprecise, I have no objection. I thought you were referring to expert opinion -your PhD teacher, the scientists... The first one -OL- doesn't interest me much. Which are we speaking of?My point is that in "ordinary language" mathematical truths are typically considered to be facts. — Douglas Alan
Ask him the question as I put it, please. Don't water it down. I'm intrigued by his answer.Would you like to wager on what his answer will be? — Douglas Alan
If you prefer to limit yourself to the ordinary language which is always imprecise, I have no objection. I thought you were referring to expert opinion -your PhD teacher, the scientists... The first one -OL- doesn't interest me much. Which are we speaking of? — David Mo
I have a degree in Philosophy from MIT. — Douglas Alan
I find it very strange that at MIT no one has explained to you the difference between factual and formal sciences — David Mo
And pure and applied mathematics, of course. — David Mo
I keep wondering what your teacher has to say on the subject. What a pity. — David Mo
Right. You mentioned your boss. I understood it was a reference to his master in the degree. I could have used your boss's opinion that you quoted. But it doesn't matter.Which teacher? — Douglas Alan
I've never heard of such a distinction. — Douglas Alan
As an example of a problem in the logic of science, we shall deal in what follows with the problem of the relationship between two major fields of science, namely, the formal sciences (logic, including mathematics) and the factual sciences (embracing the totality of all empirical disciplines: physics, biology, psychology, sociology, history, etc.). (New York: 123) — Carnap
What you are talking about is how the pure-applied distinction is reflected in university departments. You are familiar with the applied mathematics that falls within the realm of factual science. I don't think you are familiar with the turmoil that caused in the field of philosophy of science the emergence of non-Euclidean mathematics . Or with the problem of how certain purely formal mathematical developments are then applied to empirical reality, which is another problem that has fascinated theoretical scientists and philosophers since Leibniz or before... but leaves engineers or biologists indifferent.that the math department did not seem at all interested in. — Douglas Alan
I have no problem with jargon as long as it is explained, used consistently, and understood as jargon and not lay usage — Douglas Alan
Right. You mentioned your boss. I understood it was a reference to his master in the degree. I could have used your boss's opinion that you quoted. But it doesn't matter. — David Mo
Here's a classic: Carnap, Rudolf: "Formal and Factual Science" (1935): — David Mo
but leaves engineers or biologists indifferent. — David Mo
If the use of jargon bothers you, you're lost in philosophy — David Mo
But the two do not mean the same thing. — tim wood
You: "Oh, sorry! You didn't go to college, or at least my college, so I thought you were stupid, or at least ignorant. Let me correct myself. What I really meant was...". — tim wood
Einstein is even older. It happens that in philosophy of science and in science it is convenient to be aware of the theories of the past that are still valid. The thinkers of the past often said things that were clearer and more profound than today stars of philosophy. In any case, on the subject of definitions of "fact", the distinction made by Carnap between formal and factual (natural) sciences is fully valid. See here or here.Well, that's pretty old. — Douglas Alan
I find Kuhn very convincing as well. Especially convincing when he warns that science is more than just what engineers do.This said, I do have something of an interest in Kuhn's revelation that science doesn't work nearly as cleanly as one was taught in high school. — Douglas Alan
Ordinary language is specially confuse when using the word "facts". For example: "mathematical facts" and "a matter of fact". Therefore a more analytic "jargon" is needed.when answering a philosophical conundrum that has been expressed in lay language. — Douglas Alan
The thinkers of the past often said things that were clearer and more profound than today stars of philosophy. — David Mo
Ordinary language is specially confuse when using the word "facts". For example: "mathematical facts" and "a matter of fact". Therefore a more analytic "jargon" is needed. — David Mo
Words are symbols of concepts. They act as the means of making concepts into mental concretes. They allow the storage of a conceptual integration that can be recalled on demand. Words are references to a concept. — BrianW
A definition describes the basis of integration of a specific concept. It describes the essential nature of the concept. It differentiates all other particulars from those included under the concept. — BrianW
your answer better have actually answered the intended question and not a different one. I think that it is common for philosophers to do so — Douglas Alan
Don't shoot the philosopher. He's doing his best. Although he's not always very good. — David Mo
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.