Michael

The sentence mentioned is in the same language as the sentence used. If we change the meaning of "horse" then what it means to be a horse (in the upda...

The sentence "to be X is to be Y" is equivalent to the sentence "'X' means 'Y'". The sentence "Xs are Ys" is equivalent to the sentence "those things ...

I'm saying that to be a bachelor is to be an unmarried man iff we use the words "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to talk about the same thing. I'm not s...

You said that the truth of the sentence used on the right-hand side is determined by facts about the extra-linguistic world and not by whatever defini...

You're still missing the point. You say that there were bachelors before we started using the word "bachelor". I ask you by what virtue. You say by vi...

Doesn't this then entail that the below is correct? "Horses are rabbits" is true iff horses are equine animals

Why ought it be baffling to me?

Is what you say here true? If so, what does its truth have to do with horses being equine animals? Nothing? So I can, in principle, accept the truth o...

Clearly this is a lost cause. Thanks for the discussion anyway.

"Horses are equine animals" is true iff horses are equine animals.

"X is Y" is true iff X is Y.

David L. Anderson - What is Realistic about Putnam's Internal Realism?

If the truth of "X is Y" is dependent on "X" meaning "Y", and if "X" meaning "Y" is dependent on how we use the word "X", then the truth of "X is Y" i...

What I intend to say is that in those languages where "X" means "Y" the sentence "X is Y" is true. In those language where "bachelor" means "unmarried...

The premise explicitly tells you that the word "horse" is to be understood in a novel way. How much more apparent do I need to make it? It's no differ...

I haven't switched languages. The entire argument is presented in the constructed language where "horse" means "rabbit". Your reading of the conclusio...

This is simply wrong. I can use any kind of language I like; be it current English, current French, archaic English, or a stipulated pseudo-English wh...

Not it's not. The use-mention error is when you say "'X' is the same as X" and so claim something like "rabbits are made up of seven letters". What I'...

No I don't. This is a straw man.

Yes, I'm aware that this is going on, and have tried to point this out. But contrary to what you say here, it is in fact wrong to understand the word ...

I'm done with this discussion. Clearly you can't see simple reasoning. You're just engaging in equivocation and so straw men interpretations.

If "P" means "man" and if you are a man then you are a P. What's wrong with this?

There's nothing wrong with this argument. It just doesn't address what I'm saying. I'll paraphrase what I said to John: If "P" means "man" and if you ...

And why are those the characteristics that are what it means to be a horse? Because we use the word "horse" to name things which have those characteri...

Tell me where this is wrong: we used the word "gay" to refer to the light-hearted and carefree, and so at that time the sentence "to be gay is to be l...

It doesn't matter if the name starts with a capital or a small letter or if it refers to an individual or to a group. The logic is the same. You seem ...

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animals. To be gay is to be homosexual only because we...

My point is that what it means to be X is determined by how we use the word "X". If we change the way we use the word "X" then we change what it means...

I'm not saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then rabbits would undergo a biological transformation into an equine animal. I'm saying that if we ...

I'm not using present language and pretending I'm using a hypothetical future language. I'm just using the hypothetical future language. The fact that...

I'm not making a claim in the present language that is true now. I'm making a claim in the hypothetical future language that would be true then. If "h...

Of course it makes sense. We do it all the time when using symbolic logic. Let "P" mean "philosopher". The Great Whatever is a P. Am I calling you a p...

What am I wrong about? If I change my name to "Andrew" then I would be Andrew. If we change the name of rabbits to "horses" then rabbits would be hors...

It's not a non-existent language. It exists in my use of it in stating the conclusion. If it's valid, which it is, and if the meaning of "horse" is de...

No, you do understand.

The hypocrisy is that you don't think that the conclusion follows from the premise. The truth of the premise is irrelevant to its validity. If your ar...

I'm telling you that the conclusion "at T2 rabbits are horses" is using the language at T2.

It wasn't meant as a reductio. It was meant to bring to light your hypocrisy. You didn't have a problem with the claim "homosexuals are gay" given the...

No, I'm using the T2 language to claim that horses are rabbits at T2.

I agree that the things we talk about using the word give the word its meaning. So if we use the word to talk about something else then something else...

And if we change our use of the word "horse" to refer to animals with different properties then that's where the meaning comes from. Just as we change...

But I'm not making the claim in the language as it is now. As I said before, "horse" means "equine" at T1, and means "rabbit" at T2, where the languag...

That what it means to be X depends on how we use the word "X".

I'm not saying that we're at such a time. I'm saying that if we used the word "horse" to refer to rabbits then rabbits would be horses (according to t...

The premise "'Horse' means 'rabbit'" is the counterfactual premise.

And if I were to say "if we use the word 'gay' to refer to homosexuals then 'gay' becomes a synonym of 'homosexual'" would you respond with "yes, but ...

It's a counterfactual argument. I'm certainly not trying to conclude that rabbits are horses.

No; if we use the word "horse" to refer to furry creatures with big ears then "horse" becomes a synonym of "rabbit".

I know. That's all I've been saying. I've repeatedly said that I'm not saying anything so ridiculous as that they undergo a biological transformation.

It's a hypothetical change in the way we use the word "horse" to mirror the actual change in the way we use the word "gay".