ONT Re: Effective Logical Formalism
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
ELF. Literature Note 10
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa
John,
The question was about the relation of truth to semantics,
not about the relation of truth to logic, which would be
almost as idiotic as your excerpts of SUO messages to
the CG list make all of their authors out to be.
Jon Awbrey
JS: Truth has been associated with logic since Aristotle,
whom Tarski quoted several times, as in his papers
of 1933 and 1944.
JA: ... but maybe you could give a guide to the perplexed by
explaining how the subject of truth got to be lumped under
the head of semantic, and who it was that most notoriously
lumped it so, and why.
JS: Peirce adopted the names of the first three of the liberal
arts -- Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric -- as the subdivisions
of semeiotic. He defined "critical logic" as the "formal
science of the truth of propositions" (CP 2.229), which
he developed in a form that was logically equivalent to
Tarski's model theory, but in a form that was closer to
Hintikka's game-theoretical semantics. For further
discussion, see my annotations to Peirce's MS 514:
http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm
Existential Graphs
JS: Then Charles Morris, the famous popularizer and
oversimplifier of semiotics, replaced Peirce's terms
with the triad "syntax, semantics, and pragmatics",
which all the logicians adopted. Note that Tarski
did not use the word "semantics" in 1933, but after
Morris's influence, he did use that term in 1944.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o