Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an excellentcomposition?

[andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

Krispen Hartung wrote:

>>> That's easy...neither, if you follow and use the gist of my original

>> There's no logic here.
>> what are you saying?
>> That because some sentences are neither true or false you can blandly
>> apply that to any sentence?
> 
> There is no blandly applying anything here, but there is a methodology 
>and
> entire
> system behind the application. To reiterate the view, which is not my own
> unique view,
> but was set forth by a group of linguistic, analytic, and philosophers of
> science in the 50s,
> some statements, not all, are regarded as pseudo statements, meaning that
> they are
> neither true nor false. 

So if you can show that statement to be a pseudo statement then you have 
some logic going.

> 
>> As the opposite of that sentence is disproved by counter example, then 
>it
>> has to be true.   :-)
> 

> 1. If p, then q

ok, Boolean algebra...etc.
Let's assume I understand the technical stuff ;-)
no need to explain that

> 
> Your original statement: 1) "Already it transpires that rigid adherence 
>to
> serial systems is not exclusively considered to be a pre-requisite for 
>good
> composition. "
> 
> This is a complex statement. Let's say we simply it to: 2) "Rigid 
>adherence
> to serial systems is not exclusively considered to be a pre-requisite for
> good composition."
> 
> And then simply that to: 3) "Rigid adherence to serial systems is not a
> pre-requisite for good composition". This is the core statement.

No, that's a totally different statement.
You're totally mangling it, changing the meaning beyond all recognition.

I think you misunderstood, particularly the function of the phrase "not 
exclusively". Sorry, that's pure logic speak.

Anyway, I'll just skip to your main point.

> 
> So, to summarize the main point. One bad apple ruins the whole barrel. :)
> If you find a term in a sentence that is meaningless, meaning that you 
> can't
> connect it to anything "real" (empirical, introspective, etc), then the
> whole sentence is rendered meaningless (i.e., is neither true nor false).

Not so, and to carry on the Rick theme from your other mail.
'Rick Walker said "You've been a great audience".'
is a verifiable statement, even though 'great' is the bogey word here.
(dunnow if he actually said that tho')
'Rick Walker considered they were a great audience.'
Is true/false even if 'great' is so meaningless that Rick couldn't have 
considered it :-)

Sometimes the stuff in philosophy text books isn't as concrete as it 
could be.

andy


> 
> Kris