Philosophy Now Forum

Epistemology of Logics should be finished at the descriptive level before it enters the logical structure.

Thus a pink Sphinx, being a toy figure for children exists because there is such a toy, while the mythical Sphinx does not exist other than as a concept (of language, myths).

It's therefore wise to keep the Logical structure apart from the Epistemological task (that's completed before the assumptions enter the logical structure/argument).

I suspect there is a paper about to be published from the Philosophy Institute of University of Oslo.

Cheers!

(1) Taking account of currently live topics in epistemology, why would one suppose that any specific epistemological problem can or should be seen as ‘finished’ (e.g. whether perceptions count non-inferentially as a priori, whether ‘justification’ is necessary)? This seems analogous with the idea of the possibility of a ‘completed’ ideal science.

(2) A specific object given to a child, through normative language use, may have a name (‘pink Sphinx’) conceptually equivalent to that of an imagined object (the ‘mythical Sphinx’). The ontological status of the toy object and that of the naming can be seen as different, but the argument from causation is surely wrong, suggesting that the concept is communicable because the toy is perceptible. How so?

(3) I don’t follow the argument about logic. Logic concerns relations, and can be surely be relevant only to propositions, not to ‘individuals’ (e.g. ‘mythical Sphinx’, ‘toy pink Sphinx’)?

Cheers also!

The point is that your assertions containing epistemology is your responsibility apart from the logical argument/structure.

The ontology of the toy is definite as opposed to the metaphysical Sphinx which according to the myth may be able to do a lot of stuff, like flying, very much unlike the Sphinxes of Egypt. Ok?

It's a small task to go from "individuals" to propositions, like "mythical Sphinx" nicely turns to "there is a mythical Sphinx"! Are you playing with me? Don't you think I understand what I write?

Besides, the OP relates to three articles from AP Martinich's book of Phil. of Lang. and these are B. Russell's "On Denoting", PF Strawson's reaction to it and K. Donnellan's Reference and Definite Descriptions (1966) in that vein. I'm uncertain about this third article, but I'll make it clear to you later. [Edit2, 13.08.2010:] You can also add Quine's (Ch. 1:) On What There Is (from From a Logical Point of View). [End of edit.] [Another edit.] Except Quine, these articles file under Reference and Descriptions by Martinich. [End edit.]

[Edit, 12.08.2010:] You may also think that Logics is all about symbols, but what I like to point to is the Universe of Discourse of Logics that may be easily overlooked by some, ie. beginners, popular readers. So the Epistemology point enters here, UoD. I'll clarify in greater detail as this may look a little confused and blurred. [End of edit.]

Just curious. The OP referred to two singular terms which could be symbolised in logical arguments, but didn’t make an argument exploiting them.

My understanding is that logic of any kind has the principal goal of clarifying argument, whether through non-natural language symbolisations or otherwise. I'll read your post on this with interest, as I'm sure others will. No joke!

are you talking about metalogic?

DavozThanks!

Mark Question ...metalogic?

I'm not a follower of the meta-anything (except Metaphysics, but this is clearly an own field as physics don't speculate over God and other metaphysical themes). Rather I put it in general philosophical considerations that's applying in every field concerned. In the case of metalogic then I write it as being logical considerations that apply to every logical consideration regardless of logical branch. So, if this can be a logical consideration that applies to every logical branch? Possibly! As far as I can see, yes!

[Edit, 13.08.2010:] Added Metaphysics... [End of edit.]

my engrish is not so good to follow your toughts, butt your title Epistemology of Logics sounds like a guy named tarski has already tought this same. and other followers after him.

It may very well be the case, but I like to view this in relation to the above mentioned articles...

Yes, you really should improve your English! Cheers!

(PS: I'm about to look over the articles "shortly" to widen the clarification and definitely come across with some point unless the whole thing proves futile... )

[Edit, Unsp.:] I've added "K. Donnellan's Reference and Definite Descriptions (1966)" and "Except Quine, these articles file under Reference and Descriptions by Martinich". [End edit.]

[Edit, Unsp.:] (PS2: I'm also wondering whether I'm wrong in thinking it may go into the Logics section, but give me some time and let me make the attempt/case. (Nevertheless, I do think that most of the lines written so far actually do fit into the Logics category.) [End edit.]

You have to explain yourself better than this! If you don't, I report this post as spam for these boxed sets of DVDs.

.



Thank you Aetixintro for bringing this term and concept to light.

Epistemology of Logics is something vast, interesting, and actually connected to all of our thoughts a priori.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology


.

if you beleave in one world theory, you can see only one way, like "pink Sphinx, being a toy" and "mythical Sphinx as a concept". and maybe with lots of other hidden assumptions, then you can see only that kind of logics.

.




When I wiki'ed one world theory this came up:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_ ... _theory%29



Is that what you mean Mark by one world theory?




.

that is it, too, if you like. scientific mainstream is ruling the world now anyway, and how we fully see "it". older world religions are losing the fight, bit by bit. and future is behind the Technological singularity. but in other words: our discourse is meaningful only insofar as it pertains to the actual world. (The one-world assumption.) i ment assumption, and wrote theory. silly me. hidden assumptions can be theories, but not hidden anymore, if we think them out and make them to be called theories. my mistake.

.



Mark, are you saying belief is giving way to science?

I looked up One World Assumption and all I could find are two contrasting theories; Closed World Assumption & Open World Assumption, neither of which seem to fit into the present discussion.

Are you associating the phrase Epistemology of Logics into a belief system?



.

can i say that science is "belief" too? if not, then maybe my language is more scientific? maybe science is hijacking my mind, my thinking, ruling my interpretations?

suit you, sir! it does not take an einstein to find that much. and einstein did not have even google. first two google-searchresults are still good start, keep searching the free meal & easy life!

in one world, i have only one true way to assosiate that, i pressume? is modern one world "scientific world", like it was "gods world" in the good old days? can i say that i assosiate it bedtime stories? is it insult?