13.1379, Disc: Next to Last Posting/Falsifiability/Usefulness

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-1379. Fri May 17 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.1379, Disc: Next to Last Posting/Falsifiability/Usefulness

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 17 May 2002 12:05:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From:  Robert Whiting <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
Subject:  Re: 13.1354, Disc: Falsifiability vs. Usefulness

2)
Date:  Fri, 17 May 2002 06:08:52 -0300
From:  "Dan Everett" <dan_everett at sil.org>
Subject:  RE: 13.1376, Disc: Falsifiability vs. Usefulness

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 17 May 2002 12:05:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From:  Robert Whiting <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
Subject:  Re: 13.1354, Disc: Falsifiability vs. Usefulness

On Wed, 15 May 2002 "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh at mail.montclair.edu> wrote

>A few comments on falsifiability.
>
>> From:  Robert Whiting <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
>> Subject:  Re: 13.1334, Disc: Falsifiability vs. Usefulness
>>
>>
>> Falsifiability lies in the simple fact that a proposition and
>> its opposite (or P and ~P) cannot both be true at the same time
>> (although both may be false).
>
>That is certainly not possible. P + ~P =1 always. If P=0,
>and ~P=0, then we'd have P+~P=0 which is not possible.

This is only true of existential categorical propositions. Here
is the rule (sometimes known as the rule of existential falsity):

    If a categorical proposition implies but does not presuppose
    the existence of entities to which its subject or predicate
    or their contradictories apply, then it is false if any of
    these terms is empty.

What this means is that if X is presupposed to exist, then
of (1) X is P and (2) X is ~P, either (1) or (2) must be true and
the other false.  But if X is not presupposed to exist then there
is the possiblity (3) X does not exist, and if (3) is true then
both (1) and (2) are false. (Unless, of course, (1) and (2) are
existential statments about X.)


Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 17 May 2002 06:08:52 -0300
From:  "Dan Everett" <dan_everett at sil.org>
Subject:  RE: 13.1376, Disc: Falsifiability vs. Usefulness


I have read Hubey's comments in 13.1376. To respond to them would
require recycling much of past discussion and a defense of Quine and
Hempel. However, I think that their original articles provide much
better justification for their positions than I can offer. I would
urge Hubey, therefore, to consult the original sources and rebut those
rather than argue against my citations of them, which results in
distortions of their views and the original points of the citations.

Dan Everett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-1379