Laws of Nature

[Speakpigeon]

Incorrect? What would be incorrect in using the word "squirrel" to refer to a deer? In French, we use the word "cerf" to refer to a deer. Do you think the French are incorrect? Not to mention the Russian, the Chinese (鹿), the Italians and people in other galaxies? And you can do it, it works. Wait, you are doing it.

Improper use is bad like, say, bad table manners, but just the fact of being improper can't stop you eating at that table and is therefore not incorrect as you claim. Nothing incorrect in using "squirrel" for deers (although in French, to be "incorrect" is also to behave impropery).
EB

Seriously? You're gonna make me spell this out?

Go on, please. Why haven't you already! This here website isn't for thespian.
EB

I'm still waitin'.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are referring terms, and there non-referring terms. The terms, "cat" and "unicorn" are referring terms, and the terms, "if" and "although" are non-referring terms. The term, "cat" is a referring term that successfully refers, and the term, "unicorn" is a referring term that fails to refer. The reason the term, "unicorn" is a referring term and not a non-referring term despite reference failure is because a unicorn is the kind of thing that would be instantiated if it existed. No such instantiation for "if" and "although" is logically possible.

Terms, words are not, of themselves, referring. Instead, we believe we refer to things when we use them.

Second, I may use the word "cat" to refer to a cat but it may be that this cat doesn't exist in the first place, in which case my use of the word "cat" is not referring.

Third, I certainly don't know that any cat exist at all and I doubt very much you do either so I don't know that any use of the word "cat" ever refers to something that exists as a cat.

There is (perhaps) nothing about a word in and of itself that makes it a referring term, as it is at heart our usage that paves way for it to be consider so,

Exactly.

but how can it not be proper for an elementary school teacher to regard a child as not correctly matching pictures to corresponding words when they don't match up?

The teacher will regard the child as incorrect if he comes to believe that the child does not have the same beliefs as he. We could teach normal teachers to teach children to match up the word "cat" with pictures of a girafe.

We can objectively determine whether the answer is correct or incorrect. Being predicated on current convention does not make it non-objective--even if the underlying origin of convention is arbitrary.

That something is objective doesn't make it true. Newton's laws of gravitation were objectively verified and yet that were false. Words are unlikely to fare better.
EB
EB

 

[fromderinside]

That something is objective doesn't make it true. Newton's laws of gravitation were objectively verified and yet that were false. Words are unlikely to fare better.
EB

So they aren't laws if they aew just used to compute navigation parameters for space voyagers and satellites, for uses where money and lives are at stake? I'm pretty sure an astronaut believes the lawfulness of Newton's laws even if the particle physicist doesn't so believe. I think you need to specify limits to your true construct.

 

[untermensche]

Newton's laws of gravitation were objectively verified and yet that were false.

EB

But they pointed to something "real", which is unlikely fully understood even in the current models.

 

[fast]

Terms, words are not, of themselves, referring. Instead, we believe we refer to things when we use them.

Terms do refer. We've been through this. It is apart of our language to regard them as if they do. It's not to imbue them with skill.

Second, I may use the word "cat" to refer to a cat but it may be that this cat doesn't exist in the first place, in which case my use of the word "cat" is not referring.

You can use the word, "cat" to refer, yes. Again, the existence is irrelevant. If there were no cats or even a class of cats, it would still be a referring term--as opposed to a non-referring term. A word need not successfully refer in order for it to be a referring term.

By the way, words refer independent of your usage of them. For instance, if you were in an elementary school in the United States intentionally referring to elephants when using the word, "cat," the word, "cat" would still refer to cats. The reason is because reference is a function of collective usage, not mere usage.

Third, I certainly don't know that any cat exist at all and I doubt very much you do either so I don't know that any use of the word "cat" ever refers to something that exists as a cat.

Huh?

Exactly.

Yay! And they say no progress can be made.

The teacher will regard the child as incorrect if he comes to believe that the child does not have the same beliefs as he. We could teach normal teachers to teach children to match up the word "cat" with pictures of a girafe.

If a school did that, the children would correctly match (when they did) in accordance to the stipulative use, but because a correct match is dependent upon collective usage, the children would still be incorrectly matching the word with the pictures, and the teachers would be responsible that.

 

[fast]

That something is objective doesn't make it true. Newton's laws of gravitation were objectively verified and yet that were false. Words are unlikely to fare better.
EB

So they aren't laws if they aew just used to compute navigation parameters for space voyagers and satellites, for uses where money and lives are at stake? I'm pretty sure an astronaut believes the lawfulness of Newton's laws even if the particle physicist doesn't so believe. I think you need to specify limits to your true construct.

He was right about that. His response, however, really didn't apply. We can, for instance, use a methodically objective-driven approach and still be mistaken in our conclusions. Consider a test using scan tron where the answer key is flawed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That something is objective doesn't make it true. Newton's laws of gravitation were objectively verified and yet that were false. Words are unlikely to fare better.
EB

So they aren't laws if they aew just used to compute navigation parameters for space voyagers and satellites, for uses where money and lives are at stake?

Read again, it's in the past tense: were objectively verified and were false.

I obviously agree that they aren't laws. But my point was that they weren't.

I'm pretty sure an astronaut believes the lawfulness of Newton's laws even if the particle physicist doesn't so believe. I think you need to specify limits to your true construct.

I don't need to do that, it's already done but you won't listen.

Further, there's a real different between I believe it's true and I know it's true.

I can lie down and sip iced cacao while the world goes by me.


By the way, I think I know what you mean by "understanding". I was in my shower the other day, indulging myself, and I was thinking about things and it just poped into my mind (the thing you say doesn't exist). So, here it is: intelligible.

Broadly you could argue "intelligible" means the same thing as "understandable" but no. An idea which is intelligible is to a certain extent understandable. However, there's actually a degree of understandability which is not covered by any degree of intelligibility. Understandability goes further, and in the case at hand, it goes too far. It goes metaphysical. But "intelligible" is Ok because it doesn't presuppose actual knowledge.
Use it in lieu of "understandable" and you won't have to go to Hell anymore when you die.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Newton's laws of gravitation were objectively verified and yet that were false.

EB

But they pointed to something "real", which is unlikely fully understood even in the current models.

Of course, strictly speaking, and contrary to what you actually say, Newton's laws didn't point at something real and that's the point.

But I agree that's the bit which is difficult to explain as of today. I'm still busy with other things these day but within a few weeks I should be able to look at the proper way to say it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Terms, words are not, of themselves, referring. Instead, we believe we refer to things when we use them.

Terms do refer. We've been through this. It is apart of our language to regard them as if they do. It's not to imbue them with skill.

No words don't refer and that's the point. We use them with the intent of referring to something and we are wrong when this thing doesn't exist. We do have the intent but the reference is wrong and a false reference is not a reference at all.

People have the sort of interpretation you have typically because they believe that most of what we talk about exist for real. But talking of reference when it's in fact false reference is bad logic. False reference is no reference. A reference is not like a direction where you would point to New York and even if wrong about that you'd still be showing a direction. No so in the case of reference. Something is a reference if is refers to something that exists.

Second, I may use the word "cat" to refer to a cat but it may be that this cat doesn't exist in the first place, in which case my use of the word "cat" is not referring.

You can use the word, "cat" to refer, yes. Again, the existence is irrelevant. If there were no cats or even a class of cats, it would still be a referring term--as opposed to a non-referring term. A word need not successfully refer in order for it to be a referring term.

I'm Ok with teachers and grammarians talking about referring terms as a subclass of terms but that doesn't make them referring terms, i.e. terms that refer, just because you call them so.

By the way, words refer independent of your usage of them. For instance, if you were in an elementary school in the United States intentionally referring to elephants when using the word, "cat," the word, "cat" would still refer to cats. The reason is because reference is a function of collective usage, not mere usage.

Why would that be? If a term is deemed as a referring term by the user then so be it. Why would you need the sanction of collective usage?

We need to agree somehow on the meaning of words to communicate but that's a different issue.

You are essentially engaged in expounding the official grammar of English. Just give me the reference of the book.

Third, I certainly don't know that any cat exist at all and I doubt very much you do either so I don't know that any use of the word "cat" ever refers to something that exists as a cat.

Huh?

Yes.

Exactly.

Yay! And they say no progress can be made.

It's no progress as I was simply acknowledging that we were in agreement on this point.

The teacher will regard the child as incorrect if he comes to believe that the child does not have the same beliefs as he. We could teach normal teachers to teach children to match up the word "cat" with pictures of a girafe.

If a school did that, the children would correctly match (when they did) in accordance to the stipulative use, but because a correct match is dependent upon collective usage, the children would still be incorrectly matching the word with the pictures, and the teachers would be responsible that.

Not at all, the teacher and the children would then be able to communicate successfully among themselves about girafes. It's your own criterion. The teacher could even teach children to match the word "incorrect" with correct matches so that people coming from outside the classroom saying the children were incorrect would be understood by children as saying they were correct. Basically, they would disregard people not speaking their language.
EB

 

[fast]

I don't think you understand what a referring term is, and that's probably in part because you're treating the meaning of the term itself (the term, "referring term", that is) as if it's meaning is a function of it's constituents words. That is a most disconcerting problem that is quite prevelant but could be overcome if multi-worded terms (at least in similar instances as this) were treated as nouns instead of a noun followed by an adjective. A referring term ought not be be regarded merely as terms that refer. Some referring terms don't refer at all, yet people who understand what it means for a term to be a referring term do not limit their understanding to include only terms that refer as referring terms. You ought not treat this as if it's a kind of math problem where you take the various meaning of words that make up multi-worded terms and arrive at the conclusion that the meaning of the multi-worded term is a function of the combined meaning of the independent words. A referring term can include terms that fail to to refer. They are not referring terms because they sucessfully refer, as it also includes terms that fail to refer; hence, by definition, thus necessarily so, a referring term can fail to refer. Of course, there are terms that fail to refer that are not considered referring terms. I went into some detail regarding this already, but I can go through it again if need be, but at this juncture, I'm only trying to convey the overarching idea that it's a mistake to conclude meaning by some idea of adding meaning of constituent words combined within multi-worded terms.

 

[fast]

If I say that the the term, "unicorn" is a referring term, then I am correct if I'm treating the words, "referring term" as a single term composed of two words, but I am incorrect if I'm treating the words, "referring" and "term" as two consecutive one-worded terms.

 

[Juma]

But they pointed to something "real", which is unlikely fully understood even in the current models.

Of course, strictly speaking, and contrary to what you actually say, Newton's laws didn't point at something real and that's the point.

EB

1) Newtons laws are not false. They are perfectly valid, within their limits.
2) newtons laws refers to a very real model. That model implicitely points to what is being modelled.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course, strictly speaking, and contrary to what you actually say, Newton's laws didn't point at something real and that's the point.

EB

1) Newtons laws are not false. They are perfectly valid, within their limits.

I wasn't talking in the present tense since I wouldn't know what Newton's Laws are supposed to refer to today. I'm not interested in discussing how they are considered nowadays.

I was talking in the past tense, to signal what Newton thought his laws were referring to.

2) newtons laws refers to a very real model. That model implicitely points to what is being modelled.

Today, possibly. I don't care, it wasn't my point.
EB

 

[Juma]

1) Newtons laws are not false. They are perfectly valid, within their limits.

I wasn't talking in the present tense since I wouldn't know what Newton's Laws are supposed to refer to today. I'm not interested in discussing how they are considered nowadays.

I was talking in the past tense, to signal what Newton thought his laws were referring to.

2) newtons laws refers to a very real model. That model implicitely points to what is being modelled.

Today, possibly. I don't care, it wasn't my point.
EB

Newtons laws hasnt changed. So what are you talking about?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think you understand what a referring term is, and that's probably in part because you're treating the meaning of the term itself (the term, "referring term", that is) as if it's meaning is a function of it's constituents words. That is a most disconcerting problem that is quite prevelant but could be overcome if multi-worded terms (at least in similar instances as this) were treated as nouns instead of a noun followed by an adjective. A referring term ought not be be regarded merely as terms that refer. Some referring terms don't refer at all, yet people who understand what it means for a term to be a referring term do not limit their understanding to include only terms that refer as referring terms. You ought not treat this as if it's a kind of math problem where you take the various meaning of words that make up multi-worded terms and arrive at the conclusion that the meaning of the multi-worded term is a function of the combined meaning of the independent words. A referring term can include terms that fail to to refer. They are not referring terms because they sucessfully refer, as it also includes terms that fail to refer; hence, by definition, thus necessarily so, a referring term can fail to refer. Of course, there are terms that fail to refer that are not considered referring terms. I went into some detail regarding this already, but I can go through it again if need be, but at this juncture, I'm only trying to convey the overarching idea that it's a mistake to conclude meaning by some idea of adding meaning of constituent words combined within multi-worded terms.

I entirely understand this point but I don't understand why you're going on about it. I already dismissed this as irrelevant. I'm perfectly happy with people using the expression "referring term", it's just irrelevant to my point. We were talking about the question of whether terms do or do not refer, not whether the idiotic expression "referring term" is legit.

So, let me repeat my point: Terms, words are not, of themselves, referring. Instead, we believe we refer to things when we use them.
And I can repeat that it's no concern of me that teachers should still want to call them "referring terms". I certainly see that as a bad move since these so-called "referring terms" may indeed fail to refer most of them. I will guess that the people who decided to go along with that had little idea what they were talking about.

Second, I may use the word "cat" to refer to a cat but it may be that this cat doesn't exist in the first place, in which case my use of the word "cat" is not referring. And so here again I can add that it's no concern of me that teachers should still want to say that the word "cat" is a referring term. It's of course idiotic to be talking of a referring term that does not refer but we already have justice systems the world over which do not care to deliver justice.

Can you keep to the point now?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I wasn't talking in the present tense since I wouldn't know what Newton's Laws are supposed to refer to today. I'm not interested in discussing how they are considered nowadays.

I was talking in the past tense, to signal what Newton thought his laws were referring to.

2) newtons laws refers to a very real model. That model implicitely points to what is being modelled.

Today, possibly. I don't care, it wasn't my point.
EB

Newtons laws hasnt changed. So what are you talking about?

My English is good enough and unlike you I make proper sentences and go into sufficient detail.

You don't understand? Go back to school.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I was talking in the past tense, to signal what Newton thought his laws were referring to.


EB

Interesting. We are talking laws of nature aren't we? Such being the case wouldn't one assume we are talking about laws of nature, not about what Newton thought he was talking about? Even if we are talking about what Newton thought I'm quite sure Newton wasn't interested in laws of nature.

In fact he actually wrote "I do not feign (frame) hypotheses"

The whole quote:

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

So why don't we just keep it our discussion about laws of nature by not bringing the sentiments of others into it. Obviously Newton was referring to model building (see bolded).

 

[Juma]

I wasn't talking in the present tense since I wouldn't know what Newton's Laws are supposed to refer to today. I'm not interested in discussing how they are considered nowadays.

I was talking in the past tense, to signal what Newton thought his laws were referring to.

2) newtons laws refers to a very real model. That model implicitely points to what is being modelled.

Today, possibly. I don't care, it wasn't my point.
EB

Newtons laws hasnt changed. So what are you talking about?

My English is good enough and unlike you I make proper sentences and go into sufficient detail.

You don't understand? Go back to school.
EB

There is nothing wrong with my reading skills. But your response make no sense. "Today"?

 

[untermensche]

All these threads are proof of one thing that Noam Chomsky professes.

Language did not evolve as a means of communication.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

Language might express 'laws' but I can't see how it has diddly squat to do with our observations of patterns in nature. Or maybe "Look there's a pattern! Oh no, it's changed to another pattern."

Alex.