tjohnson

Korzybski proposed an answer to this question in Science and Sanity.

Wasn't he (Stephen Speicher) all hot about the theory of elementary waves (TEW)? see http://www.speicher.com/tew.html

Yes, I realize physics and science in general have moved in this direction for many centuries, yet philosophy and much of lay people's point of view still retain this attitude, for example, objectivism seems to rely heavily on this A=A idea. Korzybski's main work, Science and Sanity, is an attempt to use the methods of physical science that work so well in a science of man, which is sadly lagging behind.

An idea; In light of more modern, general semantic, considerations, the 'law of thought' commonly expressed as A=A should be replaced with one such as this S(A)=S(A), in natural language. In mathematics, a=a is fine, but in non-mathematics we do not deal with objects directly, we only know them by their structure, hence the law should be modified to s(a)=s(a). So when one hears the saying 'you never step into the same river twice' this may be true but the important structural characteristics of that river can be the same for all practical purposes.

We use undefined terms in every language, it is inescapable. In mathematics AND natural language 'point' would be considered undefined, and so one just 'knows' what it means. It is when we start defining words with other words that the difference between mathematics and natural language becomes evident. So if a circle is defined as the locus of points equidistant fro a point called the center we can see at one there is no such thing in nature.

That's what you think.

The you know the difference between the following kinds of statements? 1. A statement that asserts a particular fact. 2. An existentially quantified statement. 3. A universally quantified statement. When you have this sorted out, we will talk some more. Ba'al Chatzaf Who cares?

Thanks Ba'al, but I was being sarcastic (sorry). I thought the statement was pretty well meaningless and I wanted to see if anyone else did as well.

So why not say "it's my impression" or something instead of it's true? Don't you think 'true' has a connotation of being universal? Another device is dating statements like "I said (in 2005) that ...." so now it may or may not be the case anymore.

Here is an interesting take on existence by Korzybski et al in 1923. Entire article here. "And now we are approaching the central problem of all human knowledge. A sign or a label, if attached to nothing is a pseudo-symbol which symbolizes nothing; that is, it is not a symbol at all but is merely a noise if spoken, or blotch of black on white if written. Before a sign may acquire meaning and therefore become a symbol there must exist something for this sign to symbolize. The problem of existence has several aspects and is extremely important though not all of these aspects concern us at this stage. Poincaré defines logical existence as one free from contradiction. Russell derives existence from his theory of propositional function. "If j(x) is sometimes true, we may say there are x's for which it is true, or we may say 'arguments satisfying j(x) exist',". Russell's conception is much more fundamental, but for the time being, Poincaré's definition will be sufficient."

Does anyone understand this??

I'm confused, you say "Our best scientific theories should be regarded as provisionally and contingently true, not absolutely or certainly true. ", but then you say a statement like "At 10:11 I am sitting in front of my computer and typing a reply to your posting" can be absolutely true? Hmm...was that 10:11 your time? Anyway, you are free to speak any way you wish, of course, it was only a suggestion for the sake of clarity. You also said "So we have sufficient reason for holding these laws to be true, but we DO NOT HAVE absolute proof that these laws are everywhere and forever true." And I would add that we never will since at best these laws can only be similar in structure to the events they represent.

Wow, that's quite a mouthful there, Ellen, but I think I understand what you are saying. Have you ever heard about Russel's theory of types? This is generalized in Korzybski's general semantics and solves the problem of "self-exclusionary claims". So if I say "all generalizations are untrue" I can't include the one I just made or else it leads to a vicious circle. What Korzybski suggested is that we consider a statement about other statements to be one of a higher order. This new statement cannot apply to itself and so we interpret "all generalizations are untrue" to mean "all generalizations are untrue except this one", or "all previous generalizations are untrue". It reminds me of when we say to our children "I don't care what I said before, this is what I'm saying now!", just in case you ever said that to your children. (or even have children)

Yes, but it is a poor adjective with hundreds of years of mis-understanding behind it. In your original post you have essentially set up 3-value system; true....provisionally and contingently true...false, which is fine, I just think it would be better to abandon 'true' altogether, except in the most casual conversation, and think in terms like; similar......various degrees of similarity....disimilar. This is because nothing can be absolutely true in a natural language so we should stop using the word in any serious discussion.

THATS the right approach. That is THE most important question to ask EVER. If you get children into the habbit of asking that from an early age, you can't go wrong. Yes, that's not what I would call philosophy either, more like scientific method

I would almost describe many of the post here as having an obsession with the word 'true', or 'truth'. Since the word is not the thing it represents (the map is not the territory) the only possible content of 'knowledge' is structure. Theories are not 'true' or 'false', they are relatively similar or dissimilar in structure to the structure we perceive.

'H2O' is a simple symbolic representation of water, water is not simply H2O. To say "All water is H20" is a gross simplification of the situation and should be re-worded to say "water is usually represented by the chemical formula H2O" From wikipedia; "Water can be described as a polar liquid that dissociates disproportionately into the hydronium ion (H3O+(aq)) and an associated hydroxide ion (OH-(aq)). Water is in dynamic equilibrium between the liquid, gas and solid states at standard temperature and pressure, and is the only pure substance found naturally on Earth to be so."

Korzybski says it this way; In mathematics all characteristics are included in our definitions and so deductions, if performed correctly, always work. In any other language all characteristics cannot be included in definitions and so deductions only work relatively, no matter how well they are made. So you can't apply that statement to mathematics. FYI, it's possible to make 'certain' statements if they are framed in a negative fashion. So I can say for sure that the earth's shape is NOT a sphere, for example.

Does Rand ever address the issue of man surviving as a species and the goals of individuals may be at odds with community goals? So if a bunch of individuals possessing nuclear weapons threaten to blow up the earth while exercising their right to survival how does objectivist philosophy deal with that?

Let me get this straight, you said "A five dollar bill is a bill with a numeral "5" and the word "five" prominently displayed upon it." So any old piece of paper with '5' and 'five' on it will do? Does it have to be a certain size, certain material, paper, linen, etc. This is why statements are not 'true' or 'false', but are, in general, ambiguous until one ascertains their meaning more clearly. Communication is built upon undefined terms, which is easily demonstrable, and so we can never take for granted what someone means in a given utterance. If we are not sure we must always inquire as to what is the intended meaning.

We tried home school with one of our daughters, in grade 4 or 5, I think. We got the curriculum approved and the materials and things went ok for awhile but by the end of the year the relationship between mother/daughter was stronger than the teacher/student and she basically quit trying. To be successful at home school takes a special (very patient I would say) type of person because you need to be 2 people to your child - parent and teacher, and these are very different things.

The original premise was that if something is a particle, it cannot be a wave and vice versa. Experimental evidence has shown that this premise was wrong, even if it seemed obvious according to our intuition. Our intuition isn't always reliable, however. As the premise is wrong, there is no contradiction. I agree, Dragonfly. The problem is (again ) 2-valued logic. It works absolutely in mathematics but only partially in any other language, like physics. Korzybski said "whatever you say something IS, it isn't", so the problem begins when we say "it IS a particle" or "it IS a wave". Speaking about what something IS is a result of applying an epistomology which is about 2000 years old and sadly out of date. There is no need to say what it is, we only need to describe how it behaves, how to measure it's effects, it's structure, etc. This is the goal of science, to create symbolic maps similar in structure to 'reality'.

I don't contest what you just said, however that does not seem like what is said on that site.

From this site; "The central question of metaphysics is : Is reality dependent on our minds (subjective) or independent of our minds (objective) ?" Why can't 'reality' depend on both? You are seriously handicapping your system by insisting on an either/or orientation. 'reality' doesn't exist for that person, for that time when they are unconscious, for example. Also. if people are ill it can affect their perception of 'reality'. General semantics begins with an axiom that there is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation, there needs to be an observer at the very least. To deny this is also 'illogical' since you would have to produce said object in complete isolation. So the situation is that our consciousness is a result of the interaction of our perception and the stimulus we are immersed in.

And what if I am looking in your wallet and I say it's not a 5 dollar bill, it's counterfeit?