possibly because the word "bachelor" is unique; its only definition being an unmarried man
you could never see a married bachelor that could give you the option to revise your definition. However, you've presumed the meaning of cake by observation, as the word "Cake," is effectively meaningless because its dictionary definition doesnt tell us whether to expect meringue, black-forest gateau or cheesecake.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 21:56, archived)

The cake is a...
I can't say it
( TY&GN, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:01, archived)

Revision of definition is important.
Until I see an uniced cake, when I say 'cake' I refer to things that are iced. The statement 'all cakes have icing' is true, because when I say 'cake' I refer to something that has icing.
After I see an uniced cake, I revise my definition of cake, so the statement 'all cakes have icing' is false. But the two statements mean different things, so it's perfectly okay for the one to be true and the other to be false. They pick out different things, but using the same symbols.

This *isn't satisfactory*. It doesn't seem right. But I don't see how it can't be.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:03, archived)

Are you still going?
Wow. I admire your dedication.
( TY&GN, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:05, archived)

It's perfectly satisfactory to me.
That kind of statement will always depend on your own definition. In this case 'true' only really means 'consistent with my definition'.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:06, archived)

But in that case we don't know anything empirically, because all statements are analytic.
Which is just intuitively wrong.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:10, archived)

Intuition doesn't always go very far.
We know it well enough to interact quite happily with the world, but I'd argue it's always subjective.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:13, archived)

Intuition is, it seems to me, massively important to philosophy.
Most of what philosophy does is to try to come up with a definition of a thing that is both logically consistent and roughly fits in with our intuition.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:16, archived)

I thought the exact opposite (my first degree was part philosophy).
I never saw any reason to assume that the logical conclusion would coincide with my intuitive beliefs.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:19, archived)

nothing is intuitively anything
again, intuition is just based on a historical pattern of previous experiences driving expectation; it's not really a hardwired genetic expectation that you're born with.
But if we're talking about abstract names of things, like bachelor and cake, then of course they can be analytic. Remember there are elements hypothesized and calculated to exist but never empirically proven to exist, but they still have names and weights and other definitions.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:14, archived)

is there any way you could revise your definition of bachelor?
could bachelor ever include another variable than "married/unmarried?" No. Hence the distinction of the two types.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:10, archived)

Okay. I think that's right.
Can we say why one is revisable and the other isn't?
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:12, archived)

The only distinction I can see is that we can't imagine how batchelor would be extended.
I don't think it's logically impossible to extend the definition of batchelor, just unlikely and hard to see why it would be done.
As cake covers such a wide variety of objects, it's easy to see it expanding as a definition.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:15, archived)

because bachelor is just a classification of an already existing object; a man, a male, a human.
Whereas cake isn't even a foodstuff; it's such a broad spectrum of objects that its multi-variable nature (icing yes/no; cream yes/no; egg yes/no; hot yes/no;) means that it can still be revised down until there is only one variable. Hence, cake is revisable, but black forest gateau isn't ("was this made with cherries, cream and cocoa sponge yes/no?"), and until you reach that point, all other variables are dispensible.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:17, archived)

I'm not sure if i see the distinction between 'iced, yes/no' and 'brown/blonde/red haired' for a batchelor.
Is it just that we're assuming we can recognise a man much better than we can regonise a cake?
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:25, archived)