Lexicon of Arguments

 

VI 16
Descriptions/Carnap: there is the possibility of a unique system of descriptions within a subject area, without ostension.
Problem: one cannot decide a priori whether it is possible in the concrete case. This question is particularly important when it comes to the entire field of knowledge objects. Here, too, it cannot be decided a priori.
But the assumption of this possibility is the necessary prerequisite for the possibility of a supersubjective, purely rational science.
VI 17
Unambiguity: how is it possible to have unique descriptions for objects within an area without using any objects outside the area for help?
E.g. railway map, stylized, topologically distorted. Only points and connections. How to determine the names of cities? We look for the nodes of the highest order, where the largest number of lines converge.
VI 18
If two points have the same number, they are "homotop", i.e. they have the same structural properties. Then this relation is not sufficient for a unique identification. We would have to use other relations. Gradually, all real scientific terms will be used, including cultural ones, etc.
If there is still no difference, the places are scientifically indistinguishable.
The fact that they are subjectively different, e.g. that I am here and not there, makes no difference scientifically! Because someone else will say the same thing: "I am here and not there". >Indistinguishability.
VI 19
Structure: must be sufficiently diverse for identification. (>characteristic). >Structure, >Features.