12,212
edits
Changes
Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5 (view source)
Revision as of 17:00, 2 March 2026
, Yesterday at 17:00→5.3.4. Points Forward: fix subheads
With any system of logic, at least, that does not propose a purely syntactic rationale for itself, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the logical object that is denoted, expressed, or represented in thinking and the logical sign that denotes, expresses, or represents it. Often one uses the contrast between ''proposition'' and ''expression'' or the shade of difference between ''statement'' and ''sentence'' to convey the distinction between the logical object signified and the syntactic assemblage that signifies it. Another option is to let the division lie between a ''position'' and a ''proposition'', with the suggestion being that the function of a symbolic proposition is to indicate indifferently a plurality of logical positions. In accord with my personal preference, I use the term ''proposition'' ambiguously, expecting context to resolve the question, and resorting to the term ''expression'' when it does not.
With any system of logic, at least, that does not propose a purely syntactic rationale for itself, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the logical object that is denoted, expressed, or represented in thinking and the logical sign that denotes, expresses, or represents it. Often one uses the contrast between ''proposition'' and ''expression'' or the shade of difference between ''statement'' and ''sentence'' to convey the distinction between the logical object signified and the syntactic assemblage that signifies it. Another option is to let the division lie between a ''position'' and a ''proposition'', with the suggestion being that the function of a symbolic proposition is to indicate indifferently a plurality of logical positions. In accord with my personal preference, I use the term ''proposition'' ambiguously, expecting context to resolve the question, and resorting to the term ''expression'' when it does not.
'''Point 28.''' Adequate reasoning about the propositional constitution or the sentential representation of POVs and PODs requires a logical system that can work with ''higher order propositions'' (HOPs).
'''Point 28.'''
Adequate reasoning about the propositional constitution or the sentential representation of POVs and PODs requires a logical system that can work with ''higher order propositions'' (HOPs).
'''Point 29.'''
'''Point 29.'''