Plato's Beard

[Magical Realist]

Found this quote by Wittgenstein. It kind of supports both our views:

"The sentence 'There is a square circle' (or 'There is a round square') is meaningless (i.e. an undefined combination of words). And yet if we describe how we actually speak, we shall not call that sentence meaningless -- we shall call it false. In a sense, the sentence is not meaningless: it is composed of English words, each of which we know how to do something with; in this it is not like the sign 'gugugu' (a sound an infant makes). But we don't know how to do anything with the combination of words 'square circle', and in that sense it is meaningless. And the sentence 'There is a square circle' is false -- but only in the sense that it belongs to a false account of our language's grammar."

The only difference is that he is saying that the statement is meaningless because of the undefined combination of words "square circle". My point is that a statement can be meaningless when it, or its subject, don't refer to anything that exists.

 

[axocanth]

I think Chomsky came up with the statement "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." as an example of a nonsensical non referent sentence that is nevertheless comprehensible. But is it meaningful also? I would say no in that I don't equate meaning with comprehensibility, You can totally understand a statement that is meaningless. How else would you know it is meaningless? Review Lewis Caroll's poems for instance.

Compare:

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed, but semantically nonsensical. The sentence was originally used in his 1955 thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory and in his 1956 paper "Three Models for the Description of Language".[1]: 116  There is no obvious understandable meaning that can be derived from it, which demonstrates the distinction between syntax and semantics, and the idea that a syntactically well-formed sentence is not guaranteed to also be semantically well-formed. As an example of a category mistake, it was intended to show the inadequacy of certain probabilistic models of grammar, and the need for more structured models."--- n https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously#:~:text=Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was composed by Noam Chomsky,-formed, but semantically nonsensical.

 

[axocanth]

I like what Wittgenstein says!

By the way, Chomsky and other linguists cheerfully provide us with examples of sentences in English (say) that are grammatically perfectly formed, though we may need quite some time to make sense of them . . . if we even can at all!

 

[axocanth]

P.S. But surely there is no such difficulty with a sentence like "Unicorns are common in Japan".

I'd want to say: (i) it's perfectly meaningful, (ii) we can all understand it with no difficulty, (iii) the subject term fails to refer, and (iv) the statement is not true.

How about you?

 

[axocanth]

And no one has addressed this yet . . .

When I say "Georgia is a country in eastern Europe" and you say "Georgia is a US state", presumably we are talking about (i.e. referring to) different things.

But when Newton says "Gravity is an attractive force" and Einstein says "Gravity is the curvature of spacetime" it seems all here would wish to assert that they're talking about (i.e. referring to) the same thing.

What's the difference?

 

[Magical Realist]

But surely there is no such difficulty with a sentence like "Unicorns are common in Japan".

As a proposition, that statement is certainly comprehensible. But because it is a description of something that doesn't exist, it is meaningless because it isn't about anything, It isn't even a description. What is meant by it? What state of affairs is it referring to? Even meaning has to be about something to be meaningful. Otherwise why say it?

 

[axocanth]

As a proposition, that statement is certainly comprehensible. But because it is a description of something that doesn't exist, it is meaningless because it isn't about anything, What is meant by it? What state of affairs is it referring to? Even meaning has to be about something to be meaningful. Otherwise why say it?

You're saying it's meaningless but comprehensible? What exactly is being comprehended then?

Would you want to countenance "I understand you but I don't know what you mean"?

Sounds weird to me lol. Maybe a zen thing.

 

[axocanth]

As a proposition, that statement is certainly comprehensible. But because it is a description of something that doesn't exist, it is meaningless because it isn't about anything, It isn't even a description. What is meant by it? What state of affairs is it referring to? Even meaning has to be about something to be meaningful. Otherwise why say it?

Consider:

"There is life on other planets"

"Life on other planets does not exist"


Are these statements meaningful? One of them? Both? Neither?

 

[Magical Realist]

You're saying it's meaningless but comprehensible? What exactly is being comprehended then?

Yes,,the grammatically correct statement is understood as a statement about unicorns' locations.. It's understandable in what it is proposing. But despite that, or rather because of it, we can see it is meaningless because it refers to nothing at all. It is iow perfectly logical in form but empty of meaning.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are these statements meaningful? One of them? Both? Neither?

Life exists, Planets exist. So both conjectures are meaningful. But only one is true..

 

[axocanth]

Yes,,the grammatically correct statement is understood as a statement about unicorns' locations.. It's understandable in what it is proposing. But despite that, or rather because of it, we can see it is meaningless because it refers to nothing at all. It is iow perfectly logical in form but empty of meaning.

On this view, then, you'd have to say that all scientific theories which posit entities whose existence is uncertain are . . . well, we can't say if the theories are meaningful or meaningless.

On your view, these theories are comprehensible but we have no idea whether they are meaningful or not.

 

[axocanth]

You've been arguing that only statements whose subject term refers can be said to be meaningful. Right? (I disagree. of course)

Now, you tell us a statement like "Life on other planets is abundant" (say) is meaningful. (Of course, I agree)

You don't know whether the terms "life on other planets" or "extraterrestrial life", if you prefer, refer. Therefore, you don't know the statement is meaningful.

 

[Magical Realist]

On this view, then, you'd have to say that all scientific theories which posit entities whose existence is uncertain are . . . well, we can't say if the theories are meaningful or meaningless.

If theories are based on things that actually exist according to solid evidence, then they are not meaningless even if they are uncertain. If the theory is based on things that don't exist then yes I'd say it is meaningless. It's a theory about nothing.

 

[Magical Realist]

You don't know

whether the terms "life on other planets" or "extraterrestrial life", if you prefer, refer. Therefore, you don't know the statement is meaningful.

The statement is not about the existence of life. We already know it exists. Life is the subject. The statement is about the locations of life on other planets. It could be true or false. But since it is referring to the mere possible locations of life, it isn't meaningless.

 

[axocanth]

If theories are based on things that actually exist according to solid evidence, then they are not meaningless even if they are uncertain. If the theory is based on things that don't exist then yes I'd say it is meaningless. It's a theory about nothing.

This is to confuse semantics with epistemology.

On your view, if a term refers, then a statement containing that term is meaningful. If it does not refer, then the statement is meaningless.

Whether or not we can know this (that it actually does refer), or have good reasons to believe this, is another matter entirely, and quite irrelevant.

 

[axocanth]

The statement is not about the existence of life. We already know it exists. The statement is about the locations of life on other planets. It could be true or false. But since it is referring the mere possible locations of life, it isn't meaningless.

Consider: "The fountain of youth was never found by Ponce de Leon"

What is the subject term? "The fountain" or "The fountain of youth"?


How about the "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris"? What is the subject term?

How about "Extraterrestrial life . . . "

How about "Shaggy dogs . . . " ?

 

[Magical Realist]

On your view, if a term refers, then a statement containing that term is meaningful. If it does not refer, then the statement is meaningless.

Whether or not we can know this (that it actually does refer), or have good reasons to believe this, is another matter entirely, and quite irrelevant.

If we don't know if a given theory refers to anything real, then we don't know if the theory is meaningful or not. But I think it's safe to say most all scientific theories refer to real things or phenomena, so that they are indeed meaningful.

 

[Magical Realist]

Consider: "The fountain of youth was never found by Ponce de Leon"

What is the subject term? "The fountain" or "The fountain of youth"?

"Fountain of youth" is the subject, That it was never found is equivalent to saying it doesn't exist. It's like saying unicorns don't exist. But again, how is that meaningful is neither of those don't exist? See the OP.

 

[axocanth]

If we don't know if a given theory refers to anything real, then we don't know if the theory is meaningful or not. But I think it's safe to say most all scientific theories refer to real things or phenomena, so that they are indeed meaningful.

Now you're being consistent.

I still find it a peculiar position though. Do you really want to say the theory of phlogiston, say, and a hundred others, are utterly meaningless? (on the assumption that phlogiston et al does not exist)

Moreover, right now (given your position) you can't say whether a statement like "Extraterrestrial life is abundant" is meaningful or not. That strikes me as odd. I've no idea whether it's true or not, and neither does anybody else, but it seems perfectly meaningful to me. I doubt many people would endorse your position this. Maybe we should ask the locals!

 

[Magical Realist]

I still find it a peculiar position though. Do you really want to say the theory of phlogiston, say, and a hundred others, are utterly meaningless? (on the assumption that phlogiston et al does not exist)

If the theory of phlogistons has meaning, what is it meaningful about? Can that theory retain meaning somehow even though it doesn't refer to anything that exists? I have a theory of flying purple elephants. I have worked out all the ways these creatures fly and where they live. Everything is logical and makes sense in itself and is perfectly understandable. But it is also entirely false. Would you say that theory is still meaningful? That all the conclusions I reached about the nonreferential subject "flying purple elephants" are somehow meaningful and about something just because I believed it? Ofcourse not. Another way of saying mean is signify. What does the theory signify, when it is about something that signifies nothing?