https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sky_daddy, if preferred. — Banno

Another failure to read, for your own source testifies against you:

Noun
1. (slang) A god, especially (derogatory, offensive) God the Father.
Synonyms: sky fairy; — Wiktionary

You are the one who is posting about me. — Banno

Many others point out the same sorts of problems:

It might help if you would sketch the argument that you take McDowell to be misapprehending. — Pierre-Normand

While I appreciate many of your observations, the arrogance of this remark is not a benefit. — Paine

How about we start by analyzing these completely irrational themes that underlie these sorts of discussions, instead of digging our heels and just blurting out nonsensical accusations such as "You don't really understand Quine's point." — Arcane Sandwich

Treat this as an invitation to engage with the thread topic on its own terms...
If you want to use this style of analysis, and see the thread through its terms entirely, you're going to remain confused. — fdrake

Of course you are not displeased that your trolling has garnered traffick. — Lionino

If you are only interested in arguing that Austin (or Wittgenstein, or anyone else) never advanced this theory, I have already accepted as much. I just want to discuss the theory as it has been described. — cherryorchard

You are falling into yet another ignoratio elenchus, for Klima tells us explicitly that the intentional theory and the causal or historical* theory agree on this: — Leontiskos

This theory agrees with the recent “historical explanation”[19]—as opposed to the Russellian—theory of reference on the fundamental insight that speakers may successfully refer to objects by descriptions that do not apply to these objects. — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 4

(So Banno didn't read the paper. A lesson we have learned too many times by now. What drives him is his fanatical anti-religious creed.)

Again:

Those who have read the paper carefully already recognize Banno’s absurd misrepresentations. I invite them to engage with the paper thoughtfully and to avoid falling into the sort of trolling that Banno's whole persona has been reduced to. Engaging those who are not serious and do not have the capacity to authentically interact with the paper is a waste of time. There is no need to waste our time with such people. Tony Roark is a great example of someone who engaged the paper thoughtfully and with intellectual honesty. He is the sort of person we should imitate. — Leontiskos

So let's make this thread about me, too. What fun. — Banno

Fun indeed. You derail all the threads you participate in to be about you, because you can't engage OPs and topics on their own terms. This has been going on for some time.

Good thing you'd never engage in anything so rude, then. — Banno

Slurs against an entire class of people in order to "cleanse" the forum of their participation and ethos? Nope, I haven't. Digital eugenics isn't my thing. And I'm not seeing what digital eugenicists like yourself add to the forum (apart from the ongoing suppression of philosophical discourse).

Banno has shown with each of his posts that he simply lacks any real skills of reading comprehension. All of his posts are full of weird shit that does not come from Klima or the paper, and when it is pointed out to him over and over, he just buries his head in the sand and moves on as if nothing has occurred. — Leontiskos

To give another example, namely the long tangent regarding Kripke:

You are hung up on that word "description," and you want to say that Kripke differs from Russell on descriptions. Sure, but Klima already noted that. "Description" is a common word. Klima is quite reasonably reading "designator" as a description, given the belief about the semantic referent condition.

So using Kripke's own example that Klima picks up, consider the referent, "Her husband," in the sentence, "Her husband is kind to her." For Kripke the speaker must believe that the man fulfills the conditions for being the semantic referent of the designator, "Her husband." For Kripke, even though he is mistaken, his reference succeeds in virtue of his belief. Klima riffs on that very same example and shows how one can use parasitic reference even without the belief that Kripke requires. If Klima can say, "'Her husband' happens to be her kind boss," (or Roark can say, "The most significant British composer in history is a hack"), without involving the belief that Kripke claims is required, then obviously the theory of reference is different from Kripke's. And that's the point here: the intentional theory of reference differs from Kripke's theory of reference. — Leontiskos

1. Banno claims that Kripke is being misrepresented
2. Banno is proven wrong, at length over a number of posts by two different users
3. Banno buries his head in the sand

Banno has enough time on his hands to repeat this sort of nonsense ad nauseum. I don't.

but also to see who bites... — Banno

A troll trolling.

The forums periodically suffer a rash of god bothering. — Banno

The troll's emotional needs require excising the forum of any talk of God, and his tools are misrepresentation and slurs. Argument and philosophy are beyond his pay grade.

Maybe we need more plumbers:

You say it yourself. You've got old. Brittle and senescent, to use the technical terms. That you would have Genesis on the turntable, rather than Black Midi or Connan Mockasin, speaks to your reduced capacity to deal with environmental novelty (even if you have the other side of the trade-off in the conviction of your certainties, the wisdom of a lifetime of evermore entrenched habit.) — apokrisis

I'm glad we've all agreed that "sky daddy" is a slur, but the point here is that sophistical dismissals and emotional mis-readings are not a great look for those who want to claim the intellectual high ground.

If someone like Banno is willing to put in the time to understand and then critique an argument in fairness, then they should do that. If they are not willing to put in that time, then they should hold their tongue rather than try to "win" with slurs and aspersions. Time and again we have seen Banno unwilling to put in the time and effort for a fair assessment, but nevertheless running his tongue with slurs and aspersions.

(This is my, "This is why I'm putting Banno back on ignore" speech.)

Calling the Sky Father a Sky "Daddy" is like saying that it's a Sugar Daddy but in the sky — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, and I am heartened to know that even someone who speaks Spanish as their first language sees this. Of course, Banno's "Google AI" is not a source at all for this sort of matter.

The upshot is that understanding the argument as a proof of god's existence requires a commitment to the existence of god. — Banno

Banno has shown with each of his posts that he simply lacks any real skills of reading comprehension. All of his posts are full of weird shit that does not come from Klima or the paper, and when it is pointed out to him over and over, he just buries his head in the sand and moves on as if nothing has occurred. Probably the most absurd case occurred here, but the occurrences are constant:

Even if we admit (1), why shouldn't we just suppose that the greatest thing can be conceived of, but not be real? Why could it not be the case that the greatest thing can be imagined, and yet might not exist? — Banno

.. :lol: Anyone who has read Klima's argument knows that this is precisely what (2) does.

Why does Banno persist in this sort of behavior, here and elsewhere? Because he is a troll. He uses the forum to try to address his emotional needs, and here he is emotionally invested in the idea that Klima or his paper must be dismissed. He has engaged in this sort of emotion-driven nonsense from his very first post in the thread. That he has not managed to read or comprehend the paper is no surprise, for reading the paper would get in the way of his emotional needs. Banno is a hack who has no real desire for philosophical discourse or authentic dialogue. He just goes around shitting on everything he fails to understand, and his capacity for said failure is unparalleled.*

After Banno tried to overtly hijack the thread I just put him back on ignore, where he belongs. I have since responded to posts of his that others have picked up, but I think most people on TPF recognize that Banno is in large part a bored troll who is merely engaged in emotional, knee-jerk gainsaying.

Those who have read the paper carefully already recognize Banno’s absurd misrepresentations. I invite them to engage with the paper thoughtfully and to avoid falling into the sort of trolling that Banno's whole persona has been reduced to. Engaging those who are not serious and do not have the capacity to authentically interact with the paper is a waste of time. There is no need to waste our time with such people. Tony Roark is a great example of someone who engaged the paper thoughtfully and with intellectual honesty. He is the sort of person we should imitate.


* And that is the great irony. Klima is trying to build a bridge to mutual understanding, and Banno is intent on destroying the bridge before it is built, lest light come into his solipsistic cave. Banno is the Logical Positivist who refuses to admit that the project has failed, and who closes his eyes tightly whenever anyone presents him with the obvious evidence.

I did intend it as a slur. — Banno

Of course you did. Because it's a slur.

And again to my original point: you resort to that sort of thing because you're too dumb to square off with rationality and argument.

Fair enough. I've been pinned to the matt on that one. — Moliere

:up:

How do you feel about ↪Arcane Sandwich 's term? — Moliere

Sure, particularly if you're speaking of a religion that uses that phrase.

- So you agree it's pejorative, you agree it's insulting. Now go read the definition of slur.

- I don't know, maybe, "Our Father, who art in Heaven"?

Do you literally believe the words coming out of your mouth when you claim that "sky daddy" is not a pejorative slur?

- double post - server stutter -

- The idea that "sky daddy" is not a slur is too dumb for me to argue with. I just don't know what to say at this point.

And yes, of course atheists at the bar will use slurs to speak of religion. That's not strange at all.

It's not a slur because... — Moliere

No, it's a slur. Get real, Moliere. :roll:

- It strikes me as accurate. A handful of 20th century logicians think up a very new (and as it turns out, very bad) way of approaching existence, and they declare that anyone who thinks otherwise is an untouchable. So it is a strange form of imperialism.

As Bunge himself says: — Arcane Sandwich

Hence the atheist will have to propose serious arguments against it [Anselm's argument] instead of the sophistry of the logical imperialist. (...) In short, Anselm was far less wrong than his modern critics would have it. — Bunge (2012: 175)

That sort of "logical imperialist sophistry" is pretty common here on TPF, as the thread on Anselm's proof shows.

But problems happen when folk think they can prove that their sky daddy exists using the ontological argument, and so that anyone who says otherwise is anathema. — Banno

Or does the problem occur when atheist trolls can't manage to refute an argument, so anyone who uses it is anathema? They resort to slurs like "sky daddy" because they are too dumb to mount a coherent argument.

But Dawkins and his ilk are in their 80's and the irrational fad has passed. Once the hangers-on die out completely it will be back to inter-religious dialogue, particularly with the burgeoning forms of neo-paganism.

I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle. — Number2018

I don't see why the "digital medium" gives every system of values a populist mode of expression. For example, when the incumbent uses that same digital media to promote the reigning values, what is at stake is not poplism.

Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier refers to a vague and transient, yet potent and dynamic, sense of solidarity. — Number2018

Okay.

MAGA is not just about concentrating executive power. But the logic behind its implementation takes on a dynamic of its own, one that eludes pre-existing discursive or ideological frameworks. Take, for example, the latest executive orders on tariffs that the Trump administration is set to impose on Canada and Mexico. — Number2018

Trump has touted tariffs for a long time, so I don't see this as "the logic taking on a dynamic of its own." Tariffs are basically a simplistic approach to the "America first" mentality that is inevitably bound up with MAGA.

If populism requires a shift from pre-election promises to post-election actions, then it's not so clear that it fits Trump, because he has a surprising tendency to fulfill his promises. Or at least to try. And maybe that's a problem with Laclau: populism can function fine even when the signifier is not empty. Sometimes the people know what they want, and there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in the signifier. Sometimes the desired change has a clear direction.

Many have been especially interested in the proof itself and section 2. Such people may be interested in another paper of Klima's where he spends much more time on objections to the argument. That paper may be an alternative version of the book chapter of the OP, and it uses a slightly different formalization of Anselm's proof:

"Anselm’s Proof for God’s Existence in the Proslogion," by Gyula Klima

- Okay, thanks kazan.

- :up:

- I agree that Musk does not have the authority to abolish USAID, but the video from Rubio makes it fairly clear that USAID has not been abolished. And "notice" is a fair bit different than "approval." We can agree that it was in violation of the requirement for "substantive rationale," which my link speaks to in detail. :up:

- Well, you're always welcome to produce some arguments or some sources. It would be especially helpful if you produced support for your views that appointing Rubio administrator of the USAID was illegal, or that removing an IG without congressional approval was illegal. Those are pretty big claims, and they formed the backbone of your consternation. I would suggest doing some research before making accusations like that. I think Australians would be surprised at how different the Overton window is in the U.S. as compared with Australia.

Like many Americans, I believe we need to make cuts to address the national debt. I don't expect such cuts will come easy.

Biden had more popular votes than Trump and a bigger mandate — BC

There you go, and you've unwittingly admitted that Trump has a mandate. :up:
The point here is that trimming government agencies is not an undemocratic move by a rogue Musk.

But Rubio was confirmed as Secretary of State. — Wayfarer

So what? Is there some reason you think Rubio cannot serve as both? Or are you concerned about the rumor that USAID will be merged? Note that USAID is already closely tied to the Secretary of State:

As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the guidance of the president, secretary of state, and the National Security Council. — USAID | Wikipedia

And you're OK with that? — Wayfarer

I think you've been caught up in the sensationalism. From what I have seen Musk did not do anything without approval from the White House. I mean, what is the objection, here? That USAID has "some of the most sensitive offices in the government"? That doesn't seem true. That Musk had a team of young techies helping him? What's wrong with that? And sure, I wish Musk wouldn't talk that way about the wood-chipper, but that's Musk. He's always been like that. And what if it's as bad as he says? I am seeing a lot of hearsay online intended to whip people up into a frenzy.

So, your opinion piece says one thing — Wayfarer

It's not an opinion piece, it's from an American legal scholar. You merely linked to a Google search. Do you have a concrete source for your view? Namely for your claim that the act of firing an inspector general requires congressional approval?

Right - cuts are perfectly understandable. Had the debate been had, USAID been informed that it was to be merged with State, staff told that it was happened and had a chance to respond and wind up operations, it wouldn't be a story, and I wouldn't be complaining about it. — Wayfarer

Fair enough, but it would probably still be a story.

And the whole point of Inspectors General is that they're not political appointees — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. The President can remove IGs. Their "point" is not to be above the head executive.

- That's good to hear, jgill. :up:
My father has a similar story with cancer and Medicare.

Two of my grandchildren are American. Their father is a dual citizen. — Wayfarer

Okay, fair enough.

An illegal appointment. — Wayfarer

Except that's not true at all. The President appoints the administrator of USAID (and other executive agencies). The Senate approves the appointment. And of course it has not been dissolved.

Or does it? Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice. — Wayfarer

Are you just making things up? USAID is a government agency of the executive branch, and like other executive agencies was originally created by Congress. It is in no way illegal for the President to fire and replace officials in executive agencies (link).

So, question: do you support the right of Trump to act illegally in such cases, and the right of the Executive to ignore Congress and established law? — Wayfarer

It sounds like you don't understand the U.S. government very well. The Democrats have pushed for a strong executive branch over time, in order to circumvent the gridlock that our system is designed to produce (especially in the legislative and judicial branches). Trump has inherited that strong executive branch, and is using it.

Put yourself in the position of a USAID staffer — Wayfarer

Cuts are cuts. If the American people didn't want cuts they shouldn't have asked for them. It's not like you make cuts without cutting jobs, and in many cases it seems that benefit packages have been provided, or offered for those who wish to leave. The goal is to move a significant percentage of the government workforce into the private sector.

I'm sort of surprised to see Australians with a bookmark in the New York Times expressing such strong opinions on U.S. politics. If I read a single news outlet from Australia and opined strongly on Australian policies, how would I be viewed?

The Trump-Musk team is inevitably a brake-gas team, and even your NYT article says that Trump has pumped the brakes at times (Trump himself has said that Musk requires authorization from the White House for any moves he makes in this capacity). But given that the mainstream media hates Musk for helping Trump get re-elected, and that anyone who makes cuts is going to be demonized, these sorts of stories are very much to be expected. No agency is going to take a cut laying down, and that's why Musk may be just the right man for the job, aggressive as he is. The Pew Research Center reports fairly often on the debt, and recently had a piece on the federal workforce.

There is a basic tendency among citizens to say they want the deficit addressed, but then to object whenever anything gets cut. Or to say they want illegal immigrants deported, but then to object whenever illegal immigrants are deported.

Regarding USAID, here is Senator Rubio, who is now the acting head of USAID and is an elected official:



As Rubio says, "There are a lot of functions of the USAID that are going to continue, that are going to be part of American foreign policy." So the idea that everything within USAID is being cut seems like scare-mongering. Here is the White House Press Secretary on the strange USAID expenditures. As I understand it, the argument from the right is that USAID was created to provide aid and promote U.S. interests abroad, and it is now largely failing in that charter due to ideological capture. It is not being shut down but it is being reorganized to accomplish its purpose.

In what sense, derives from a mandate? — Wayfarer

One of Trump's campaign promises was to address the federal debt. Musk and others are the ones he put on that job. There is no such thing as an elected debt-reducer. Musk represents Trump, and the President has more control over the federal bureaucracy than any other individual.

And sure, Congress is the ideal party to address federal debt, but they have shown themselves unable to do so for a long time now. It's really not that strange to see a president who was elected in part because of his promise to reduce the debt appoint an official to reduce the debt.

I don't think the average citizen is concerned that Musk is trying to address the debt. I think they are grateful that someone is finally doing what should have been done decades ago. The problem of the federal debt is one of the least partisan issues. And those who are making cuts are basically guaranteed to make certain groups angry, namely the groups who are benefitting from the money that needs to be cut.

The real wonder here is that Trump is giving Musk so much authority. That's surprising, but also hopeful. Musk has even expressed a willingness to make cuts to defense spending (which is where it would really count), but it is less likely that he will be allowed to touch that. Even Bernie Sanders was pretty happy about that idea.

But, remember, this guy has never been elected to any public office. — Wayfarer

"Unelected bureaucrat is appointed by President to cut costs associated with bureaucratic bloat."

As has been pointed out, Musk is the democratic bureaucrat, given that his job derives from a mandate. So if we are using principles of democracy to calculate whether the bureaucracy that Musk represents or the bureaucracy that Musk opposes should win out, obviously the bureaucracy that Musk represents wins out. Musk's job is to address the budget problem, and this is something the citizens of the U.S. have been desiring for decades. The U.S. debt is $36.4 trillion and counting.

Does it matter if Jesus claimed that he was God? My contention is that he could be God even if he never claimed such a thing. — Arcane Sandwich

It is logically possible, but it doesn't surprise me that no one goes around arguing that Jesus was God even though he never claimed to be God. Basically, if Jesus and the documentary evidence we now possess are not self-consciously presenting evidence for Jesus' divinity, then the whole point is moot. If that is not in place then one could as easily claim that Benjamin Franklin was the Son of God as Jesus.

- When you say "arguments" you presumably mean formal arguments, and on that reading the answer is that historical arguments are more difficult to formalize. I don't find arguments for Jesus' divinity to be at all lacking. In fact I see them more often, probably because it is usually admitted that Jesus is a historical figure, and because the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God usually precedes the question of whether God exists. This is because, if Jesus claimed to be God, then the atheist has a new case to consider, whereas if he did not claim to be God, then everyone is off the hook. And given the Christological theology that has become popular especially since Barth, leading with Jesus has become very common. This is particularly true in a secular age which is more opposed to traditional notions of God.

(Here is an example of just such an article published today.)

Let me refine the argument I gave:

If a logical form need not be isolated, then it "behaves in precisely the same manner" (and therefore does not have a different logical structure...).

That's the key point, namely:

Put it this way: when someone gives a modus ponens you don't have to check with them first, to make sure that p!=q. It makes no difference at all. There is no caveat when it comes to modus ponens, no condition where if p=q the rule fails. — Leontiskos

Call this MP1:

1. p → q
2. p
3. ∴ q

And this MP2:

1. p → p
2. p
3. ∴ p


If MP2 behaved differently than MP1 (in a relevant logical sense), then MP2 would need to be isolated from MP1. In that case every time someone offered up a modus ponens we would need verify whether we are talking about MP1 or MP2. But we don't. Because nothing is at stake. They behave in the same manner (because modus ponens doesn't care whether the first premise is tautological). It makes no difference. And therefore they have the same structure. We don't say that things which do not need to be differentiated have a different structure. MP2 is merely a particular kind of modus ponens. For the formalist it is no more or less modus ponens than any other modus ponens. It is not anything other than modus ponens (and therefore has no different inferential structure).

The difference between MP1 and MP2 is metalogical, and one of course needs to move into the meta-language if they want to understand what an argument really is.

(We actually have a lot of threads on these sorts of topics, so I don't want belabor this for too long.)

Not quite, because the difference between p → p and p → q affects their truth values. — Arcane Sandwich

It is merely a subset of the truth table where p!=q. The truth values are no different. Or in other words, at no point would someone become alarmed upon learning that p=q. It makes no difference at all. Nothing that was valid where p!=q will become invalid where p=q. This is why representing them with the same letter or a different letter makes no difference at all.

That's not what I claim. Formally they have different structures, not poetically. — Arcane Sandwich

If two things behave in precisely the same manner, then they do not have two different logical structures. The two modus ponens "arguments" under scrutiny behave in precisely the same manner; therefore they do not have two different logical structures (on the formalist's understanding).

Put it this way: when someone gives a modus ponens you don't have to check with them first, to make sure that p!=q. It makes no difference at all. There is no caveat when it comes to modus ponens, no condition where if p=q the rule fails.

The same goes for the notion of degeneracy. It only makes sense outside of logic, not within it. — Arcane Sandwich

You say that but then you want to make an ad hoc distinction between the "structure" of different modus ponens "arguments," so I still have hope for you. :wink:

There's two types of structures in logic: the structure of arguments, and the structure of propositions. Two arguments can have the same structure (i.e., both of them are modus ponens) while having propositions with different structures (i.e., p → q instead of p → p). — Arcane Sandwich

That's an interesting account, but I don't know of any rule of logic which requires that a modus ponens where p=q magically has a different structure. The validity rules are all the same, so it's not clear what it would even mean to claim that it has a different structure. If you're all about formalism, then the structure is exactly the same.

When I say that some arguments are good and that some of them are bad, I'm speaking poetically. In other words, I'm being rhetorical, not logical. I don't dismiss rhetoric, I simply declare that being persuasive and compelling are within its province, instead of being qualities of the formal science that we call logic. — Arcane Sandwich

Then you have no reason to claim that the modus ponens where p=q has a different structure, apart from poetry. "Poetically they have a different structure, but formally they do not."

On my view if someone cannot see that this is a degenerate case of modus ponens, then they haven't grasped the raison d'être of logic:

1. p → p
2. p
3. ∴ p

...and of course someone who limits themselves to "formalisms" cannot admit the notion of a degenerate case.

They have different structures. "If p, then p" is not the same structure as "If p, then q". — Arcane Sandwich

Same structure:

p: God exists
q: God exists

1. p → q
2. p
3. ∴ q

(The structure is modus ponens, and you yourself claimed that 1-2-3 is a modus ponens.)

But I wouldn't endorse that argument myself, because it's easily refutable. To speak poetically for a moment, it's not a good argument, even though it's both valid and sound. — Arcane Sandwich

But just a few minutes ago you said, "An argument is either sound or unsound. There's nothing more to it." Now you want to say that some sound arguments are good and some sound arguments are bad. So clearly there is something more to it.

There's nothing "degenerate" about such cases. That notion has no place in a formal science such as logic. — Arcane Sandwich

<Sure it does>. And when Frege first tried to introduce the material conditional he was resisted for decades for this very reason.

Which is why the arguments in the OP, while being modus ponens, do not have the same structure as the one in your example. Because in your example, the conditional has the form "if p, then p", while the conditionals in the arguments of the OP have this other structure: "if p, then q". — Arcane Sandwich

But you yourself said that it is a "perfectly valid modus ponens." So what's the problem? What's the difference between a modus ponens where p=q and a modus ponens where p!=q? It seems that on your view there can be no significant distinction between the two modus ponens. You said, "An argument is either sound or unsound. There's nothing more to it. Logic is a science (a formal science, just like mathematics)."

It's not a sound argument, at least not to my atheist eyes. It is valid, however. Just not sound. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes: you think 4-5-6 is the sound argument, right?

I can't see how we could know who the name refers to if we didn't know at least one of the following that Socrates is purported to be; that is 'the teacher of Plato', 'the agora gadfly' 'the man charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and condemned to drink hemlock' and so on.

Of course if someone is familiar with those descriptions the proper name 'Socrates' "functions correctly", but for someone who doesn't I can't see how it functions at all. — Janus

Yes, I agree. I had a conversation with Banno on this topic awhile back, such as <here>. One example exchange from that thread:

A novice who asks "Who is Thales?" does not have at hand a description of Thales, and yet they are asking about Thales. — Banno

But the novice does have a description of 'Thales'. If they had no description they would not be able to ask the question. Specifically, if they did not believe that 'Thales' described an ancient philosopher, they would not be able to ask the question. "Thales was an ancient philosopher" is a description, as is (1).

Suppose, ex hypothesi, that the novice has no description of 'Thales'. If this were so, then what in the world do you propose they would be asking about when they ask about 'Thales'? In that case they could not be asking about a man, because if they were asking about a man then 'Thales' would have a description. They could not be asking about a previously existing thing, because if they were asking about a previously existing thing then they would have a description. They could not be asking about a name from their textbook, because if they were asking about a name from their textbook then they would have a description, etc.

So again, you are contradicting yourself in simultaneously holding that the novice has no description of 'Thales' and nevertheless uses the name in a meaningful sense. — Leontiskos

What's interesting is that if you start with Russell's (bad) theory, it is very hard to extricate yourself. You end up compulsively concerned with the question concerning a verifiable "definite description."