= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Is semiotics bullshit? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (45)
Okay, but I could say the same thing about logic.
But what do you refer to, when you refer to "logic"? Do you perhaps mean boolean logic? Predicate logic? Propositional logic?
There's a common reference class, but no common implementation, when you point at "logic". Each kind of logic is incomplete, but that is fine, because each kind of logic is domain-specific, and you use the kind of logic which is most complete with respect to the problem you're interested in. Which actually raises a point about something you said:
Yes. No. No. The exact same things are true of "logic", however, in its broadest sense. It's only when you get into the specific "sciences" (or domains of logic) that anything interesting is allowed to happen.
Okay, so then semiotics is mostly a set of proofs I take it. What, then, are the major assumptions underlying those proofs and which are the most important proofs built on those assumptions?
Semiotics seems to be the idea that everything should be analyzed in terms of its communicative function.
No. That explanation was a way of explaining why "semiotics" as a general field of study is not actually going to be able to say anything interesting at all.