Are all models wrong?

[uwot]

Literally NOBODY says "I know my wife".

Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

Seeming as my incomprehension is perfectly justifiable...

This sentence probably won't turn up much on a Google search. How many results does a string of words need before you can comprehend it?

[Skepdick]

Lacewing

Btw, assuming you're one of aka Skepdick's many personae - probably better to disguise your stylistic quirks, such as block capitalisation for emphasis.

ROFL

Talk about poor judgment.

[Skepdick]

This sentence probably won't turn up much on a Google search.

Not probably. Definitely.

How many results does a string of words need before you can comprehend it?

One example of actual, contextual real-world usage would probably suffice.

You seem to be of the conviction that you 'comprehend' the sentence 'I know my wife' in a vacuum. That I doubt.

Here is a tought experiment. You and Peter bump into each other on the street. The first thing he says to you is "I know my wife".
Since the sentence contains no new, interesting or relevant information, what is it that you 'comprehend' about that sentence exactly?

[Peter Holmes]

Lacewing

Btw, assuming you're one of aka Skepdick's many personae - probably better to disguise your stylistic quirks, such as block capitalisation for emphasis.

ROFL

Talk about poor judgment.

I suppose being a wanker comes naturally if you're a p****.

[Skepdick]

I suppose being a wanker comes naturally if you're a p****.

Peter, you are being a dismissive wanker to Lancewing just because she uses caps for emphasis.

You are being a p**** to her, because I am a p**** to you.

I'll get you a mirror for those mis-directed emotions...

[uwot]

Here is a tought experiment. You and Peter bump into each other on the street. The first thing he says to you is "I know my wife".
Since the sentence contains no new, interesting or relevant information, what is it that you 'comprehend' about that sentence exactly?

That Peter Holmes knows his wife. Anyway, back to the topic, I don't believe that because all models are underdetermined they are all therefore wrong. I'm fairly confident that the heliocentric model of the solar system, allowing for gravity induced wobbles, is pretty much on the money, for instance.

[Lacewing]

Lacewing

Btw, assuming you're one of aka Skepdick's many personae - probably better to disguise your stylistic quirks, such as block capitalisation for emphasis.

Wow. Because I used CAPS for emphasis, you think I'm Skepdick? (What does that name even mean, anyway?)

So you have nothing thoughtful to respond to my thoughtful response to you? I guess you didn't like it.

Ah well... carry on fighting with Skepdick (whatever that is).

[Peter Holmes]

Lacewing

Btw, assuming you're one of aka Skepdick's many personae - probably better to disguise your stylistic quirks, such as block capitalisation for emphasis.

Wow. Because I used CAPS for emphasis, you think I'm Skepdick? (What does that name even mean, anyway?)

So you have nothing thoughtful to respond to my thoughtful response to you? I guess you didn't like it.

Ah well... carry on fighting with Skepdick (whatever that is).

All out of thoughtful responses, atm.

[Skepdick]

That Peter Holmes knows his wife.

You are saying the same nothing he's saying.

Paraphrase your 'comprehension'.

Based on the above sentence would you assume that Peter knows his wife's Grandmother's birthday?

[uwot]

That Peter Holmes knows his wife.

You are saying the same nothing he's saying.

Makes sense to me.

Paraphrase your 'comprehension'.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if Peter Holmes doesn't know his wife.

Based on the above sentence would you assume that Peter knows his wife's Grandmother's birthday?

No. Is it your belief that knowing someone entails knowing the birthday of all their ancestors?

[Skepdick]

Frankly, I'd be surprised if Peter Holmes doesn't know his wife.

Which is precisely why it's a surprising sentence. It says nothing that needs saying. Which is why nobody (according to Google) says it.

Hence Peter saying it is the exception, not the norm.

No. Is it your belief that knowing someone entails knowing the birthday of all their ancestors?

No, but is my belief that knowing the birthday of any of your wife's ancestors counts as knowledge about your wife.

Is it your belief that knowing somebody entails knowing anything about them?

[uwot]

Frankly, I'd be surprised if Peter Holmes doesn't know his wife.

Which is precisely why it's a surprising sentence. It says nothing that needs saying.

So if it's that bleedin' obvious, why this?

You seem to be of the conviction that you 'comprehend' the sentence 'I know my wife' in a vacuum. That I doubt.

Are you using incomprehensible as a synonym for surprising?

No. Is it your belief that knowing someone entails knowing the birthday of all their ancestors?

No, but is my belief that knowing the birthday of any of your wife's ancestors counts as knowledge about your wife.

There's either an 'it' or a question mark missing. We all make typos, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll go with the former. I don't know the birthday of any of my own grandparents, and I never even met any of my wife's grandparents, but having lived together for 20 years, I really don't think my knowledge is seriously lacking because of that.

Is it your belief that knowing somebody entails knowing anything about them?

Yes, but not every historical detail.

[Skepdick]

So if it's that bleedin' obvious, why this?

It says nothing that needs saying. Which is why nobody ever (according to Google) says it.

Hence Peter saying it is the exception, not the norm.

It's neither obvious what Peter is saying, nor why he's saying it.

Are you using incomprehensible as a synonym for surprising?

No. I am using it as a synonym for 'uninformative'. Because it lacks content - there is nothing to 'comprehend'.

The uninformative sentence uniquely uttered by Peter is surprising to me.

I don't know the birthday of any of my own grandparents, and I never even met any of my wife's grandparents, but having lived together for 20 years, I really don't think my knowledge is seriously lacking because of that.

Great! So I can infer that (to you) knowing a person's birthday (in general) is not necessary for knowing the person.

Yes, but not every historical detail.

Which is why I used the word 'anything' (rather than 'everything') - I am trying to establish your lowest viable sufficiency criterion for 'knowing' a person.

So lets go into the other extreme: Is knowing somebody's name sufficient to say that you know them?

I know your name, I know you have a daughter who goes to Edinburgh University, I know you attained a Masters degree in 2016, I know you have lived with your wife for 20 years. I certainly know more about you than I know about the guy who made me coffee this morning (I definitely don't know him).

Would you say that I know you?

[uwot]

So if it's that bleedin' obvious, why this?

It says nothing that needs saying. Which is why nobody ever (according to Google) says it.

Hence Peter saying it is the exception, not the norm.

It's neither obvious what Peter is saying, nor why he's saying it.

I disagree. What and why seem perfectly obvious in the context he said it:

I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on. These are real things that I know.

It is difficult to believe that you cannot work out the "intent/purpose/telos" from that. And as he pointed out:

...we use the word know and its cognates perfectly clearly in many different contexts, and that if required we can explain what we mean in different ways.

Are you using incomprehensible as a synonym for surprising?

No. I am using it as a synonym for 'uninformative'. Because it lacks content - there is nothing to 'comprehend'.

Frankly, I think it is disingenuous to claim that "incomprehensible" is a synonym for "nothing to 'comprehend'." I suppose it is possible that you spend so much time on computer languages that you sometimes forget that most are very poor models for natural languages.

The uninformative sentence uniquely uttered by Peter is surprising to me.

You'll get over it. I used to be surprised by how fatuous some of your arguments are.

I don't know the birthday of any of my own grandparents, and I never even met any of my wife's grandparents, but having lived together for 20 years, I really don't think my knowledge is seriously lacking because of that.

Great! So I can infer that (to you) knowing a person's birthday (in general) is not necessary for knowing the person.

You can't infer that from my thinking that knowing a person's grandmother's birthday (in general) is not necessary for knowing the person.

I am trying to establish your lowest viable sufficiency criterion for 'knowing' a person.

I'm with Peter Holmes on this one: it depends on the context.

So lets go into the other extreme: Is knowing somebody's name sufficient to say that you know them?

Personally I wouldn't set the bar so low and I'm confident that Peter Holmes knows a bit more than just that about his wife.

I know your name, I know you have a daughter who goes to Edinburgh University, I know you attained a Masters degree in 2016, I know you have lived with your wife for 20 years. I certainly know more about you than I know about the guy who made me coffee this morning (I definitely don't know him).

Would you say that I know you?

Thankfully not.

[Lacewing]

All out of thoughtful responses, atm.

Ah. So, you make some inaccurate rude assumption to blow me off, and then don't apologize or say anything further. NICE.