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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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}.

Who determines that the semantic meaning of cat is "animal" rather than "very large plant-eating mammals with a prehensile trunk"? — RussellA

It is difficult to understand how words acquire semantic meaning, perhaps this is too difficult for you? There is no guy named "Bill" that has complete authority to write all the dictionaries in the world. That is simply not the way that reality works.

In the correct body of analytical knowledge the attributes of {cat} are assigned to the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "cat". The same process works this same way for every human language.

Why can't the expression "cats are very large plant-eating mammals with a prehensile trunk" be part of the body of analytic knowledge? — RussellA

Do you understand that lies are not true and only truth is included in knowledge?

I stipulate the definition of cat as "a very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia", meaning that the expression "cats are elephants" is analytic and true. — RussellA

I already said that expressions that are not elements of the body of analytical knowledge are excluded.

I will make it simpler for you ONLY known facts and expressions that are derived from known facts are included. If an expression if FALSE then it is excluded.

e referring to PL Olcott's private language — RussellA

The only way that any word ever obtains any meaning is that an otherwise random string of symbols is assigned a meaning. Then that word becomes an a part of a standard language. Since many words already have meanings we use the meanings of these words.

The problem is that there are an infinite number of possible analytic expressions including cats. For example, "cats are animals", "cats are elephants", "cats are part of the Kingdom Monera", "cats are part of the Kingdom Protista", "cats are trees", "cats are not anmals", etc. — RussellA

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

I have already stipulated {the body of analytic knowledge} which necessarily excludes {cats are elephants} and includes {cats are animals}.

As an example, how is "cats" encoded in language? — RussellA

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder:Feliformia
Family: Felidae
Subfamily:Felinae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. catus
The above are the elements in the inheritance hierarchy for {cat}.
The only details about {cat} that are not encoded elsewhere in the
inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge ontology are thing like {breed}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

We end up with every detail of all general knowledge about cats.
We can determine that a {cat} is an {animal} on the basis of the
above knowledge tree.

It seems to me that Montague Semantics is about how expressions are built out of the words used, not whether the expression is true or not. IE, as the expression "John finds a unicorn" may or may not be true, the expression "cats are animals" may or may not be true.

Montague Semantics provides the basis to encode the current body of knowledge. This would exclude expressions that are not true facts or derived from true facts.

Montague Semantics may be able to analyse how expressions are constructed out of their parts, but not whether the expression is analytic or not. — RussellA

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

It is stipulated that Analytic(Olcott) means anything that can be encoded in Montague Semantics <is> Analytic(Olcott). More generally anything that can be encoded in language (including formal mathematical languages) <is> Analytic(Olcott). The actual taste of strawberries cannot be encoded in language.

I think Rorty actually uses something close to the example in the OP. "Cats are animals." But suppose we discover tomorrow that "all cats are actually very cleverly crafted androids introduced by ETs onto the Earth to spy on us." What then? It no longer seems to be true that cats are animals; they are actually androids. Different genus. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is stipulated as an axiom that {cats are animals} even if cats are a mere figment of the imagination. If it is later proven that all cat's were only androids for the last 10,000 years then the axiom is updated.

One can easily get stuck in absurdity when one is too skeptical. One could propose that the integer {three} might have always only been a plate of burned brownies crushed on the floor, thus the entire notion of arithmetic was only ever a delusion.

So why use existing terms whose definition is different and well known? — Lionino

It might take a whole book to define Analytic(Olcott) without any reference to anything else. To define Analytic(Olcott) in terms of the Analytic of the Analytic/Synthetic distinction is the most efficient and effective way.

As Carnap writes, a natural language is of an entirely different nature. — RussellA

Rudolf Carnap derived the basis for Richard Montague to mathematically formalize natural language. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/

I cannot know the meaning of the word "carnivorous" just from the word itself — RussellA

All of the words have every slight nuance of their meaning assigned to them by Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague Meaning Postulates.

Therefore, if the expression "cats are animals" can only be analytic on the basis of the meanings of the words "cat" and "animal", but there is no absolute meaning of either "cat" nor "animal", then the expression cannot be analytic. — RussellA

The meaning of those terms is the sum total of every detail of all of the general knowledge that applies to those terms (that can be written down using language). The body of analytic knowledge is simply a bunch of meanings connected together. They are connected in a tree of knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy directed graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

That is not what Synthetic(Olcott) means.
— PL Olcott
Then what is the formal definition of "Synthetic" in expressions? Are expressions correct here? Should they not be propositions or judgements? — Corvus

Analytic(Olcott) propositions can be verified as completely true entirely on the basis of their meaning. This includes many things that are typically construed as {Synthetic}. {Synthetic}(Olcott) only includes propositions that require sense data from the sense organs to verify their truth.

There is circularity here.
From 1): if an expression is part of a Body of Analytic Truth (BOAK), it is true and analytic.
From 2): if an expression is true and analytic, it becomes part of a Body of Analytic Truth (BOAK)

Given the proposition "X is Y", how do we know whether this is part of the Body of Analytic Truth (BOAK)? — RussellA

Analytic(Olcott) is a lot like the conventional meaning of {Analytic} in that every expression is verified as completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning.

X is Y is a mere template until the variables are assigned values. Once they are assigned values then it becomes an axiom. The axiom must correspond to things in the actual world.

Fine, but that is called a posteriori knowledge. — Lionino

No existing terms exactly match the ideas that I must communicate.

That is fine but your definitions will not be picked up because that is not what analytic means neither is it for synthetic. When the word 'synthetic' is used it never implies sense data in any context. When the word 'analytic' is used it does not always imply language. — Lionino

The only reason why there continues to be disagreement about whether or not the analytic/synthetic distinction exists is because it was not defined unequivocally. I cannot begin any discussion about {analytic truthmakers} with people that have chosen to disbelieve that {analytic} exists.

Only when we clarify that analytic excludes sense data from the sense organs can we know that the full meaning of a {red rose} is excluded from analytic. You have to actually see the redness of a rose to get its full meaning.

(a) Knowledge that can be specified using language and (b) those aspects of knowledge that cannot be fully specified using language is the most natural division of analytic/synthetic.

Maybe I could call this the analytic/empirical distinction.

Synthetic expressions are to add new knowledge or information to the expressions, — Corvus

That is not what Synthetic(Olcott) means. Actually seeing or smelling a {Rose} is the synthetic aspect of a {Rose}. Every detail about a {Rose} that can be described using words is the Analytic(Olcott) aspect of a {Rose}.

Why did you write down a meaningless gibberish? — Corvus

It is difficult to understand how words acquire meaning. That it is difficult to understand does not entail that my understanding is incorrect. The arbitrary identifier "rose" has a set of meanings to it that are assigned to different finite strings in different human languages.

It seems you are conflating the synthetic analytic distinction with a priopri a posteriori one. — Lionino

I am defining Analytic(Olcott) and Synthetic(Olcott) so that they can be unequivocally divided.
Analytic(Olcott) is anything that can be explained using language.
Synthetic(Olcott) is anything that requires sense data from the sense organs:
photographs, videos, tape recordings, or the first hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs.

Consider a computer generated language that does not depend on any external information. Rather than the expression "cats are animals", consider the more general case "X is Y". If it is possible to verify the expression as true, then the expression is analytic. — RussellA

Every element of the body of analytic knowledge can be verified as true in that it is either an axiom of {BOAK} or is deduced from the axioms of {BOAK}. The BOAK excludes photographs, videos, tape recordings, and the first hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL Is a language that can formalize the semantic meaning of any natural language expression. CycL uses 128-bit GUIDs instead of words so that every unique sense meaning of every natural language word has a unique identifier. The reasoning provided by CycL is basically sound deductive inference on the basis of the semantics of formalized natural language axioms.

I get that. The point I'm making is you haven't unequivocally done so. Look into the history of philosophy about the terms. Its centuries of bickering back and forth with no agreement. My former advice still stands. Let the words die. Indicate the concepts you want in an argument without using the words. — Philosophim

Synthetic(Olcott) means photographs, videos, tape recordings, sense data from the sense organs.
Analytic(Olcott) means anything and everything the can be stated using formal or natural language.

Does he disregard justified "belief" as a ground for truth? — Corvus

I already corrected the gettier problem cases of the error of "justified true belief".
knowledge is a justified true belief such that the justification necessitates the truth of the belief.

Heinlein's "fair witness" merely refrains for forming conclusions based on sense data when
there is a pause in the continuity of the sense data.

The fundamental problem is that at the end of the day properties cannot be described in words. How can the sensation of pain be described, the smell of a rose, the colour red, the feeling of missing an important appointment? — RussellA

It is not at all that properties cannot be described using words. It is that some properties
require first-hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs to be fully described.

The actual smell of a rose cannot be completely put into words, thus is not an element of
the body of analytic knowledge. We can still know that some {roses} are {red} even though
we lack the sense data from the sense organs showing exactly what {red} is.

"That cats exist." is a statement, which needs verification to be true. — Corvus

No it is an axiom forming the foundation of the body of analytical knowledge.
Unless and until finite strings are assigned meaning they remain meaningless gibberish.
The assignment of meaning to finite strings <is> the foundation of analytical knowledge.

↪PL Olcott I take little comfort in the notion that truth is either that which we agree to be true or that which is arguably true. It strikes me very much as another garbage in/garbage out situation. — Arne

The actual set of actual human knowledge is encoded such that a computer can apply human reasoning within this body of knowledge that can be written down AKA analytic. The body of knowledge that cannot be written down, sounds, pictures, videos, is the body of synthetic knowledge.

I suspect Quine would consider the process by which words are attached to meaning is far more organic than people prefer. — Arne

The meaning of the words of a specific human language simply assigns meanings to finite strings. When these meanings are analytic then it merely assigns a set of finite strings to a finite string. It gets much more complicated when the meanings are experiential.

Analytic(olcott) means all the things that a computer can possibly understand entirely on the basis of the relation of finite strings to other finite strings. A computer never need taste an actual strawberry to explain all of the details of strawberries that can be explained using language.

Instead and consistent with your original post, the true difference between analytic or synthetic statements is the need for sense data. — Arne

Yes that is my key point, hence I cannot begin to understand how anyone could possibly disbelieve in the analytic/synthetic distinction. Quine seemed to disbelieve that words have meaning yet to even say this he had to use the meaning of words.

That is one reason why I am making sure to exclude them
— PL Olcott

My bad.

I mistakenly presumed your post was about "Overcoming all objections to the Analytic / Synthetic distinction."

Good luck with that. — Arne

I have three different related posts. The purpose of this post is to unequivocally establish that the analytic / synthetic distinction definitely exists. People like Quine seem to simply "not believe in" this distinction.

I don't want to go into every subtle nuance of detail of synthetic, I merely want to unequivocally divide it from analytic. Too many people simply "do not believe in" analytic and this prevents me from even starting a conversation about the foundations of analytic truth.

or verified as not true. Cats are rocks. An analytical statement that is verified false is still an analytical statement. And the same can be said of synthetic statements. So again, whether a statement is true/false does not determine whether it is analytic/synthetic. Instead and consistent with your original post, the true difference between analytic or synthetic statements is the need for sense data. — Arne

If its truth value cannot possibly be determined entirely on the basis of its meaning then it is not analytic.