Re: Re:virus: Is this YOUR science?--Correction

joe dees (
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:47:22 -0500

At Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:19:37 -0800, you wrote:
>Opps! Forgot the footnote:
>[1] Really though, when you get right down to it, your basic assumption is
>equililent to: ~C ==> (A v B) "If it has meaning, it is either true or
>false." I simply do not find that statement sufficent to describe the world
>I live in. I would hope that as a Pagan--and no less, a Poet--you would
>agree. Maybe the problem is that one of us is talking about the logic of
>sentences while the other, the logic the sentences describe.
>-Prof. Tim

I'm talking about statements of fact. Either a state of affairs upon which the statement is mappable exists (in which case it is true, or it does not (in which case it is false) or the statement does not univocally refer to a verifiable or falsifiable state of affairs (in which case it is meaningless). The statement "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" parses correctly, but cannot be said to apply (or not) to any identifiable state of affairs due to semantic contradictions (colorless and green, sleeping ideas - as opposed to sleeping people having ideas (dreams), green ideas - as opposed to ideas of green, sleeping furiously (a nonsensical modifier), and so on). Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher

Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time. Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!