Subscribe via RSS

Object Language V Metalanguage (my brief thoughts on the difference)

By tdberg

By the simplest of terms, the object language is the language of science, and the metalanguage is the language of the philosophy of science. In other words, the metalanguage discusses and describes the object language. For example, the proposition all ravens are black exists in the object language, whereas the proposition all ravens are black is true exists in the metalanguage. By distinguishing this difference, we avoid circularity and the substitution of identicals with identicals. This is due to the fact that anytime we predicate the truth of a sentence belonging to the object language, the resulting sentence does not belong to the object language, but rather to the metalanguage. As such, the philosophy of science is the logical study of the structures, methods, and aims of science. It analyzes theory and concept, and the relationship between evidence and hypothesis. Additionally, the philosophy of science attempts to distinguish the difference between observable terms (beakers, labs) and unobservable terms (atoms, light rays) by asking whether the unobservable terms can be defined empirically. Science, on the other hand, is devoted to the actual task of observing what happens in the world and forming empirical laws based on those observations. Scientists engage in deductive and/or inductive reasoning while the philosophers of science discuss the soundness of that reasoning. In sum, the philosophy of science uses a metalanguage to refer to science’s object language, which in turn describes things in the world


2 Responses to Object Language V Metalanguage (my brief thoughts on the difference)

  1. Nik

    This is above my paygrade. Im going back to the photos. You are an interesting blend Tina-Desiree.

  2. Matteo

    .Personally, I believe that oonnipis that are really worth something are developed in a conflict, where both parties have something they believe in and try to argue and convince each other, and the both walk away with a different, but stronger truth.However, a lot of flack Keith is catching is completely due to presentation, and assumptions of malicious intent. If you can get people to accept or discuss the relevant concept, then it doesn’t actually matter if you call it a game, or a kgame, or a strategy game, or a tactics game, or a rogue-like, or a globule or whatever.I do think this is also a cultural thing. Like, apparently Emotional Intelligence or Emotional Quotient is a thing they started to test in workplace environments here in Canada, to determine how inoffensive you can get without becoming completely and utterly inefficient and useless. And everything being said, it *really* sucks (especially for conflict-minded, super-aggressive, incredibly handsome, manly macho men like me ), but it’s outside the scope of game design and it’s part of a bigger cultural thing.

Post a Comment