Correct.But I'll add that I consider many apparently objective statements to be subjective.Let me see if I understand this. You’re making a distinction between the legitimate use of the word ‘is’ to make a statement about objective reality vs the use of the word ‘is’ to state a subjective preference, and your only concern here is with confusions between the two contexts that result in a subjective use of ‘is’ appearing to be an objective use? — Joshs
Good point and good response overall. Do you have a better example of a truly objective statement?As a mathematician I must object to your example though. Saying 'two plus two is four' rather than the more formal 'two plus two equals four' will often lead to confusion. We just don't need 'is' in that context and it causes trouble if we do use it. The word 'equals' in mathematics conveys a relationship with a precise meaning that differs from that usually attributed to the dreaded verb 'is'. — andrewk
I think attributing properties can be problematic, too, as in "That is a good movie"Using it to express category membership (attributing properties) also seems harmless to me, and shorter than the e-prime alternative. Only the 'identity' and 'existence' uses cause serious trouble. — andrewk
Yes. I think the book I wrote in mostly E-Prime is a better book than it would have been otherwise.I have worked on minimising my use of the the verb 'to be' over the past few years and find it a really helpful discipline, with profound benefits. — andrewk
... if you kept all 4 donuts, that would be different from sharing them out 3 for you and 1 for me. — Real Gone Cat
then 2+2 is not 4 either. — Real Gone Cat
If 2+2 is 4 because they have the same numeric value, then 2+2 is 3+1. — Real Gone Cat
Without qualifying the "is" — Real Gone Cat
"is" as used here is short for "is equal to". — Fooloso4
This is commonly understood to mean two plus two equals four and not two plus two is the same thing as four. 3+1 "is" 4 in the sense of equals 4 but not that 3+1 and 2+2 are the same thing. We could do without "is": 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 2+2=3+1. — Fooloso4
Now it's some great revelation that 2+2 is NOT 4 ? — Real Gone Cat
In math, we call what you're referring to partitions. — Real Gone Cat
So you want to take math back to pebble counting. — Real Gone Cat
It is a matter of ontology.
Okay, let's try a thought experiment. If you hold a donut and someone hands you another donut, do you have 1+1 or 2 donuts? — Real Gone Cat
You're using "is" to refer to the partitioning of sets. — Real Gone Cat
"2+2 and 3+1 are different because they break up the number 4 in two distinct ways". — Real Gone Cat
This much needed book should go a long way both toward correcting the under-appreciation of Jacob Klein's brilliant work on the nature and historical origin of modern symbolic mathematics, and toward eliciting due attention to the significance of that work for our interpretation of the modern scientific view of the world.
Specifically at issue is Husserl's expressed concern over the loss of an "original intuition" to ground symbolic mathematical science, and the consequent breakdown of meaning in that science. For the Husserl of Crisis, the history of this breakdown consists of two stages. First is the geometrical idealization of the world via what he terms "Galilean science" (taken as a kind of collective noun). Second is the formalization of that science by means of symbolic algebra, which latter surreptitiously substitutes symbolic mathematical abstractions for the directly intuited realities of the real world ("life-world"). In the face of such loss of meaning, which fundamentally determines (and threatens) modern western civilization in the modern scientific age, the urgent task of philosophy is to bring to light or to "desediment" (so Hopkins) the historically accreted, and by now almost entirely occluded, original meaning constituents of the concepts of modern mathematical science, so as to recover and reactivate the authentic sense of these concepts./quote]
Husserl and Klein want to take math back to pebble counting. And you have apparently joined in. — Real Gone Cat
Specifically at issue is Husserl's expressed concern over the loss of an "original intuition" to ground symbolic mathematical science ...
For the Husserl of Crisis, the history of this breakdown consists of ... symbolic algebra, which latter surreptitiously substitutes symbolic mathematical abstractions for the directly intuited realities of the real world ("life-world") ...
Could it include pebble counting? — Real Gone Cat
I have been giving this some thought. Our debate has nothing to do with the word "is", it's with the word "plus". — Real Gone Cat
given your rejection of "is" meaning "equal to") — Real Gone Cat
"is" as used here is short for "is equal to". — Fooloso4
Hope you're not too angry. — Real Gone Cat
So "is" means equal to. Unless it doesn't. — Real Gone Cat
I'm sorry, but that's incoherent. — Real Gone Cat
So "is" means equal to. Unless it doesn't. — Real Gone Cat
I once wrote a book mostly in E-Prime. It’s available for free reading and download at ScienceAsNaturalTheology.org — Art48
Again, the problem I have with Foolos4 is switching between meanings of "is" in a single sentence. You shouldn't say, "3+1 is 4" AND "3+1 is not 2+2" — Real Gone Cat
This is commonly understood to mean two plus two equals four and not two plus two is the same thing as four. 3+1 "is" 4 in the sense of equals 4 but not that 3+1 and 2+2 are the same thing. We could do without "is": 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 2+2=3+1. — Fooloso4
The speaker is then going to have to explain, "Oh, I meant splitting 4 things into 3 and 1 is different from 2 and 2". — Real Gone Cat
If we are given 4 donuts and I take 3 and give you one, you might complain that is not fair. Would you be satisfied if I defended this by saying that since 2+2 is 4 and 3+1 is 4 then 3+1 is 2+2? Or would you say, as I did above that:
3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4
Wow. I encounter so many people on TPF who do not know basic math, it's striking. — Real Gone Cat
You want to find mysticism here. — Real Gone Cat
If you still want to introduce mysticism into math — Real Gone Cat
Except the mystics on TPF. You're always searching for the woo. — Real Gone Cat
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.