On the other hand notice that if you translated back from Spanish, 'caballo' translates 'horse,' not 'rabbit,' as would the translation be back from y...
Because you have been trying to make an argument in English, not an invented language. If you make the argument in an invented language, in translatin...
No. To be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal, regardless of the language. You cannot change what it is to be a horse by changing what you use '...
No, it isn't. To show this, it suffices to show that one can be true, while the other false. Suppose that 'horse' meant 'rabbit.' Then to be a horse w...
Nope. To be a bachelor is to be an unmarried man, period. In Rome, unmarried men were already bachelors, even though the terms were not used. Explain ...
No, bachelors are unmarried men regardless of what words we used. The terms are synonymous now, which means that no matter what, bachelors are always ...
Yes, that's why I said it. In the language as it is now used, it reports that horses are equine animals, which is true. This in no way means, as you t...
Okay, let me try to break this down. You claim: "Horses are equine animals" is true iff horses are equine animals. Here is the proof that this is fals...
No. Horses are equine animals, period, regardless of whether any sentences are true at all. Horses being equine animals is in no way dependent on lang...
No. For example, in a language in which "horse" and "rabbit" are synonyms, "Horses are rabbits" is true, yet horses are not rabbits (which is absurd; ...
This is wrong. "X is Y" is not true just in case X is Y. The words can be used to mean anything you like, and in particular, if "X" and "Y" meant some...
This is true. But it does not mean that X is Y, which is where the claim becomes substantive. And it undermines your original point, which was that wh...
Is that premise made in English or made-up-English? If the former, then you are wrong that the whole argument is in a pseudo-language, and as I said b...
If the whole argument is in a constructed language (which you've never said before, I think because you didn't intend this to be the case), then what ...
No, you cannot, since we are speaking English. If you want to make up a new language and present an argument in that language, fine, but it would then...
This conditional is true, but only because 'bachelor' actually means 'unmarried man.' It does not transfer over to the 'horse'-'rabbit' case. In fact,...
If you do not make that assumption, the argument is invalid. As it stands the argument you continue to present as valid is clearly invalid, and so the...
Yes, Pierre-Normand this hinges on a use-mention error on Michael's part. He is under the impression that a counterfactual claim about a word has cons...
For anyone interested in this topic still, this argument is a textbook case of a simple use-mention error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use–mention_d...
Michael, given that a pig is a certain sort of animal, explain to me how I can become a pig without becoming that sort of animal. You seem to think I ...
It's false, is what is wrong with it. If "P" means man and you are a man, then you are a man, and you can be called "P." It does not make you a P. For...
It addresses what you are saying because you have repeatedly denied the conclusion of the argument. So now are you saying you accept it? If there were...
Another way of putting this: to belong to the group of horses just is to belong to the group of equine animals: these are the very same thing. So you ...
Of course it matters. Proper names and common nouns are different sorts of words, and the latter are property-denoting while the former aren't. Althou...
No. Horses were horses, because they had certain characteristics, long before any such word existed. This is true (to an extent -- it has to do with t...
So your claim is that, if we called rabbits "horses," they would become horses. Prima facie, this claim is absurd. My claim is that they still would b...
This is not symbolic logic. There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. A fortiori you are using no such language. This is gett...
There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. You are just using English as it exists now, and making a false claim in it. You ar...
That makes no sense. You are using the language as it exists now because you are speaking now. You cannot use a non-existent language. The validity is...
Holy shit, no. There is no hypocrisy. The "gay" case works because "gay" actually does mean "homosexual," and "rabbit" actually does not mean horse. I...
No, you are not, because it is not T2, that language doesn't exist, and you can't use a nonexistent language. You cannot just change the rules of the ...
You are claiming now, using the English language that horses would be rabbits at T2. There is no question of which language you intend it to be 'about...
Because we are not at such a time, you cannot make the claim in the language as it now is. Rabbits would not be horses. They would be the referent of ...
But gays are homosexuals, because "gay" is a synonym of "homosexual." The language as we speak it is not such that "rabbit" is a synonym of "horse." I...
What counterfactual argument? You posted an argument with a premise. That premise was that "rabbit" means "horse." It does not; so the argument fails....
It is not a hypothetical change; it is a premise you used in an argument. The premise is false, so the argument is unsound. My argument used no such f...
Okay, consider the following. "Gay" means "homosexual." Homosexuals were already homosexual before the word "gay" was invented. It follows therefore t...
So you think that by inventing the word 'gay,' you change what it is to be gay? How does that even work? Here's a question: since to be any kind of an...
No, it does not. Rabbits were never horses. That's absurd. But thats true! You haven't changed what it is to be gay, ie. homosexual, by inventing a wo...
No, I've already explained this. If you coin a new word 'gay' that means 'homosexual,' it follows that homosexual people were already gay before the c...
You cannot make horses members of the rabbit family unless it is possible to be a rabbit and a horse simultaneously. If you change the meaning of 'hor...
So it's a misunderstanding to think that if I call a rabbit a 'horse,' it doesn't become a horse? Consider that this is literally the position you are...
Comments