Banno

Yep, and are talking at cross purposes. Supose our domain of discourse - what we are talking about - contains only the letters "a" and "b". How many t...

ah. My mistake. Thanks.

That doesn't seem too far from the treatment of properties as things we actively atribute to individuals, as I suggested teasingly to Tim. It also ser...

Not much of a gardener, are you. They both grow in summer. Squash are eaten young and green, pumpkins left for the frost, so that the skin hardens and...

I wouldn't know. There are other more obvious parallels - an enthusiastic amateur league, for one. And I am given to understand that there is a ready ...

Seems eminently sensible.

From the videos, it seems that Real Men don't play violin.

- that odd idea that properties are "more real" than relations.

@"Wayfarer" https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/540391108_1257558409504589_2063218053330609275_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_...

I don't see anything that debars sex workers from playing football, should they so choose. The question seems more to be as to whether doing so consti...

Ok. The move to considering the issue as methodological is worthwhile. "Every event has a cause" is one of Watkins' "haunted universes" doctrines, nei...

Those hierarchies are how we keep set theory consistent, underpinning Zermelo set theory, and hence ZFC, the accepted foundation of mathematics. Not u...

This is the legacy of syllogistic logic. Since it can only deal in terms of "All S are P", "Some S are P", and so on, it obliges the user to think in ...

What's curious here is how "the property of..." serves to confuse things. The very grammar of "the property of..." encourages us to think we're talkin...

This leads pretty quickly to Russell's paradox. Consider "the property of being a property that doesn't apply to itself." Hence logicians and mathemat...

My advice would be to drop "...the property of..." from all of this. Then "being a member of the set of red things" is the same as "being red". This k...

I'll point out again the discourtesy of removing the automatic links when quoting.

Where? You appear here to have gone to great lengths to explain what your argument is not, without explaining what it is. Your reply is in such broad ...

I hope not.

We eat a lot of butternut, but we call it a pumpkin. Soup or roasted, sometimes in a tart. Carrot cake is ubiquitous, so I didn't think to mention it.

Yeah, there's the problem. You are doing them wrong.

Love your sense of irony. Is professional sport that bad?

I don't think this reply received the attention it deserves.

I don't think the difference substantial. Again, after Davidson, I'd suggest that we have overwhelmingly agreement as to what things are just and what...

I can only presume that those extolling the supposed virtues of the various turnips have not been sufficiently exposed to parsnips. And we should also...

The love of reification. We have a predicate - red - so there must be a thing - redness. Why? As Austin pointed out, there need be nothing in common b...

Well, that's how it is used, apart from Tim's modification. Any finite set of observations can be satisfied by innumerable general theories. Tim argue...

Indeed, and this is part of what is fraught in thinking of a fourth item it {a,b,c} that makes it a set; if we allow for that, then we need a fifth it...

Indeed, agreeing that the proffered definitions of justice are inadequate presupposes agreement concerning what is just and what isn't. We already had...

My point, in so few words. Nice.

Well, no, you're not, since as explained, the use you make of "property" is circular, except for the bit where having a property is attributed - somet...

More's the pity. Ok.

Not so much, although your walking back on scepticism is positive. Your main argument is that underdetermination only seems feasible because of the re...

Yep.

Several quite different points, all of them muddled together. First point. might be understood as saying that in addition to the set consisting of {bo...

OK. :grimace: Keep reading.

Then she is mistaken. Or has been misread.

Oops.

Nuh. The set is the teachers. The criteria are not the set.

You say that with great certainty, as if it were an explanation of what a property is. But what is an attribute, if not what we attribute to something...

Ah - Brassica rapa subsp. rapa. Ok. Neither is worth substituting for potato.

Brassica napobrassica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutabaga

So are swedes and rutabegas and purple top turnips extensionally identical? If so, we may substitute one for the other and achieve the same distastefu...

Me too. I don't think anyone here is suggesting there are no red things or no triangles. The picture holds you. Can't we just say that there are trian...

Are you saying that we can't tell rutabegas from swedes? I thought they were the same. These things: https://www.thedailygarden.us/uploads/4/5/4/9/454...

I don't see what "distinct from" does here. S is different from a, but is it different from a, b and c? Extensionally, no. Perhaps you are trying to c...

I don't disagree with that, with some caution. So {a,b,c}= {a,c,b}. The care is that {a,b,c} is not other than other things". So again, when we say a ...

Swedes are horrid. Just get some spuds.

Yep. {a, b, c} is different to {a, b, d}. It would only amount to equivocation if we were to say that they were the same. Tim's objection is unclear.

Why would being infinite make it uncertain? There are infinite odd numbers, but no uncertainty here. Infinity does not lead automatically to vagueness...