Powered By Blogger

Welcome to Villa Speranza.

Welcome to Villa Speranza.

Search This Blog

Translate

Wednesday, May 7, 2025

Slingshot

 Grice


Let “σ” abbreviate the operator “… consists in the fact that…,” which, when pre-fixed to a sentence, produces a predicate, or epithet. 


Let S abbreviate “Snow is white,” and let G abbreviate “Grass is green.”


In that case:


xσ(y(y=y and S) = y(y=y) is 1 just in case xσ(y(if y=y, G) = y(y=y) is 1, 


since 


y(if y=y, S) 


and 


y(if y=y, G) 


are each a singular term, which, if S and G are both true, each refers to y(y=y), and are therefore co-referential and inter-substitutable. 


So:


Provided that S and G are both 1 — and regardless of what an utterer explicitly conveys by uttering a token of any:


any event which consists of the otiose fact that S is also an event which consists of the otiose fact that G.


i. e., this randomly chosen event is *identical* to any other randomly chosen event. 


I hasten to criticise this slingshot fallacy licensing the 


inter-substitution 


of 


— this or that co-referential singular term 


and 


— this or that logically equivalent sub-sentence 


as officially demanded because it is needed to license a patently valid, if baffling, inference. 


If, in spite of this alleged benefit, the manoeuvre slso saddles you with a commitment to some hideous consequence, the rational course is to endeavour to find a way of retaining the alleged benefit while eliminating the disastrous accompaniment.


I’m hardly being original here:


In standard set theory it is always rational to search for as generous a comprehension axiom if it permits you to escape this or that paradox.


I propose then to retain the principle of co-reference, and only prohibit its use *after* any  appeal to the principle of logical equivalence.


Note that the initial deployment of the principle of logical equivalence — involving snowing being white and grass being green — is tailored to the generation of a conjunctive sentence which provides opportunity only for a very trouble-raising application of the principle of co-referentiality. 


And if that is what the game is, why not stop it? 


Especially when there other ways around!

No comments:

Post a Comment