09 Nov 08
Originally posted by Conrau KThe relationship between syntax and semantics is contentious. If Inferential Role Semantics is correct, and if inferences are computations over the syntax (ie, the formal, structural properties) of mental representations, then syntax determines semantics. The semantics of the logical operators themselves can be implicitly defined by the syntactical relations between premises and the conclusions they license us to draw. See, for instance, Paul Horwich on this point.
Semantics is not even part of grammar. You have clearly 'overloaded' the term 'syntax'. Logic does, however, have a number of applications in both syntax and semantics, particularly in the field of quantification theory. Logical quantifiers help clarify issues of scope, such as smaller/wider scope and inner/outer negation. The distinction between logician a ...[text shortened]... t always clear-cut. A linguist may need to read Bertrand Russel and a logician Noam Chomsky.
10 Nov 08
As an example of what I was talking about, consider the following:
1. Darwin's theory states that with careful selection, a species can gain a significant number of desirable features.
2. Someone declares that logically controlled human breeding can result in improvements to the human race.
3. Somebody else tries to carry that out by wiping out people he deems to have undesirable features.
4. Someone declares that science and logic are responsible for 3. and are therefore 'evil', and that 'logic' caused them to sin.
It is my opinion that 3 is entirely the result of a moral evaluation on the relative value of certain human features and a moral evaluation on the value of human life and only those moral evaluations should be considered 'good', 'bad' or 'sinful', and those evaluations are not a result of logic or science or Darwin.
Jaywill is suggesting that we should not always follow the findings of a logical conclusion, but I fail to see a situation in which he would not or we should not.
10 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI didn't make such an inclusion-assertion about semantcs and grammar. I posited an analogical relationship between logic and grammar for purposes like twitehead's, namely that logic and grammar both have little immediately to do with the semantic content of statements.
Semantics is not even part of grammar. You have clearly 'overloaded' the term 'syntax'. Logic does, however, have a number of applications in both syntax and semantics, particularly in the field of quantification theory. Logical quantifiers help clarify issues of scope, such as smaller/wider scope and inner/outer negation. The distinction between logician a ...[text shortened]... t always clear-cut. A linguist may need to read Bertrand Russel and a logician Noam Chomsky.
I didn't even use the term "syntax" and fail to see how I overloaded it.
EDIT Also you missed the joke. I don't understand this particular meme very well, but I believe an EPIC FAIL! is in oder.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyI appreciate the joke now. But you did conflate semantics and grammar in the one sentence by claiming that people overload semantics by substituting grammar for logic. Since grammar is part of the field of syntax (or probably vice versa), you are overloading another term.
I didn't make such an inclusion-assertion about semantcs and grammar. I posited an analogical relationship between logic and grammar for purposes like twitehead's, namely that logic and grammar both have little immediately to do with the semantic content of statements.
I didn't even use the term "syntax" and fail to see how I overloaded it.
EDI ...[text shortened]... I don't understand this particular meme very well, but I believe an EPIC FAIL! is in oder.
I suggest you read Bbar's post above. Grammar and logic do have a strong relationship and, perhaps 'contentiously', with semantics. You need only survey the vast array of literature devoted to 'the definite article' to see how the three are closely inter-related. Indeed, Bertrand Russel, the logician, first attempted to use logical quantifiers in order to explicate the semantics of the article, 'the'.
10 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KRead it again!
people overload semantics by substituting grammar for logic.
I said that: people wrongly attribute semantic content to logic in the manner twitehead is discussing. By way of analogy, this would be like wrongly attributing semantic content to grammar. I made no claims about overloading semantics or substituting grammar for logic. I don't even know what "overloading semantics" means.
Dragging in a whole other thing minds can do, your demonstrated reading comprehension skills lead me to speculate, inductively, about the truth of your claim to have understood the joke.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyDon't get precious. Mistaken interpretations can be your fault as much as anyone else's. Should someone misunderstand you, you need only clarify rather than castigate the literacy skills of the other poster. It makes it particularly difficult when you deliberately phrase the post to be grammatically wrong (using 'am' instead of 'is' to point out that noun/verb agreement is not a moral law). Funny, perhaps, but do not blame me for my misinterpretation when you intentionally make a post that can be taken that way.
Read it again!
I said that: people wrongly attribute semantic content to logic in the manner twitehead is discussing. By way of analogy, this would be like wrongly attributing semantic content to grammar. I made no claims about overloading semantics or substituting grammar for logic. I don't even know what "overloading semantics" means.
Draggi ...[text shortened]... to speculate, [b]inductively, about the truth of your claim to have understood the joke.[/b]
Anyway, my point remains that the distinction between logic, semantics and grammar is not so easily made. So whether or not I misconstrued your post, your analogy fails.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI'd like to know what exactly is wrong with my analogy, as I stated it (and I will state it again in detail if necessary). So far I've not seen any explanation of the relationship between the usefulness of my analogy and the difficulties in distinguishing logic, semantics and grammar, especially since every analogy you've attributed to me so far has been a misquotation (whether my fault or yours) and since my analogy on relies on very coarse properties of the relationships between logic or grammar and semantics.
Anyway, my point remains that the distinction between logic, semantics and grammar is not so easily made. So whether or not I misconstrued your post, your analogy fails.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by PalynkaMy point exactly. Jaywill would have us believe that we should not follow our logic in that case, or worse, that logic is to blame for a 'wrong' choice being taken. In reality, we must weigh up the choices:
You're a married man and Monica Bellucci wants you. Logic dictates that you must sin. 😛
1. Do the 'right thing'.
2. Sin - but get some benefits.
The only part that logic really plays is in the simple < or > in the equation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyIn your analogy, it seems you claim that some people wrongly add semantics to logic, just as some analogously subsitute 'grammar for logic'. I think that shows mistaken notions about the relations between these three fields. I do not think this is worthy of much debate. If you meant something other than what I have written, then I apologise. But don't get tetchy at me.
I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with my analogy, as I stated it (and I will state it again in detail if necessary). So far I've not seen any explanation of the relationship between the usefulness of my analogy and the difficulties in distinguishing logic, semantics and grammar, especially since every analogy you've attributed to me so far has be ...[text shortened]... relies on very coarse properties of the relationships between logic or grammar and semantics.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadAll I can say is that Darwin died a christian
As an example of what I was talking about, consider the following:
1. Darwin's theory states that with careful selection, a species can gain a significant number of desirable features.
2. Someone declares that logically controlled human breeding can result in improvements to the human race.
3. Somebody else tries to carry that out by wiping out people ...[text shortened]... cal conclusion, but I fail to see a situation in which he would not or we should not.