Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 150 ff
Frege: Understanding comes before truth. - Truth is undefinable (FregeVsTarski).
Dummett: in earlier works thesis: the theory of meaning is a theory of understanding.
Today: the relationship is more subtle. Neither of the two can be explained by the other respectively.
We can also express our understanding by means of other words. (Replacement, interchangeability.)
- - -
Husted IV 457
On the other hand it cannot apply generally that the understanding of expressions has the form of explicit knowledge and consists in the ability to explain expressions with other expressions. For this would result in a circle.
Husted IV 458 ff
Understanding: there are limits: we can only attribute an understanding to ourselves if we can show how to express it. The (metaphysical) realist must therefore show how our understanding (ultimately behavior) discloses that sentences are either true or false (even if we cannot decide). And that’s not possible.
Husted IV 463
Understanding: the linguistic understanding of a person cannot include a component that could not be expressed in the use of the language. ((s) Cf. >Gavagai).
- - -
II 69
Understanding/Dummett: knowing the corresponding fact is not sufficient to understand a sentence.
II 69
For knowing the truth conditions of a proposition, knowing the corresponding fact is not sufficient. This condition is too weak. What we need is the speaker's understanding of the language.
What does it mean to know a language? And this is derived from the understanding of the individual words.
What does the speaker know when he knows a language and especially when he knows a certain sentence?
That is of course practical knowledge.
But that does not mean that it is not propositional knowledge! Mastery of procedures can always be presented propositionally.
So we are looking for a theoretical representation of a practical skill.
II 111
Understanding/Meaning Theory/Dummett: what would be a verification of the sentence - important argument: we need not be able to decide the sentence in order to understand him - 1) Two Dogmas Vs: most sentences involve inferences - 2) Vs: if truth is a basic concept, then there is no reason why we should know enough to deduce the meaning of a complex sentence from the constituents.
- - -
III (b) 70/71
Understanding/Truth/Dummett: in order for a sentence to be used for communication of information it must be possible to understand it before you know whether it is true - Transparency: if you attribute one meaning to two words each, one must know whether these meanings are the same - but: someone who grasps the sense (meaning) of two expressions, does not need to know that they have the same reference.
III (b) 83
Language/Meaning/Dummett: E.g. exchange "table" with "eagle": then sentences such as "female tables lay eggs" etc. So the hoax is uncovered - Prerequisite: we already know sentences that do not contain "table" and "eagle"! -((s) > Löwenheim-Skolem.) - You cannot assume a theory (collection of true sentences at a time) without an additional meaning theory.
III (c) 96
((s) If all sentences contained "table" and "Eagle", then the meaning of the other words in these sentences could depend on these two words).

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.