tech: opaque

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

Cowan: What you say is right as far as it goes; however, the point is not
what Ralph is disposed to assent to, but what is true.  The first claim is
true, and any expression synonymous with "Ortcutt" may be substituted for
it; the second claim is true only if "Ortcutt" is understood to be opaque
or semi-opaque ("pillar of the community" would do as a substitute, but
not "man sneaking around on the beach", e.g.). pc: Although it is not
impossible that he is wrong and that we can prove it, Ralph is generally a
better judge of what he believes than we are and, in this case, the
evidence given is that the truth is that "Ralph believes that Orcutt is no
spy" is correct and "Ralph believes that Orcutt is a spy" is wrong.  To be
sure, "Ralph believes that the man slinking around is a spy" is also true
and the referent of "the man slinking around" is indeed Orcutt, but Ralph
does not believe that (indeed, has probably not even considered it), so
the inference does not go through, even with both of these guys having
external reference.  Of course, the following is also true "Of Orcutt,
Ralph believes that he is a spy," so the move from outer to inner
reference does not work in opaque contexts, even though, in this case, the
move from inner to outer is valid. lojbab: So it is possible you are
trying to talk about sisku and not kalte pc: No, we are talking about
hunting, not looking for something (really a property? how do we get so
screwed up?): we intend to kill or catch or photograph or whatever is the
appropriate trophy taking act.  And it is that intention that drops the
object down the opacity hole, allowing us to do our hunting not only
unsuccessfully or without an specific target but even when there are no
critters of the sort sought (indeed, even when we know there are not).
Logic doesn't do a great job woith this situation nor linguistics nor
(consequently? I'd like to think so) Lojban.
pc>|83