83,229
edits
Dilbert’s programme: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|myth|}}Dilbert’s programme is a legal theory formulated by pioneering German jurist [[Havid Dilbert]] | {{a|myth|}}Dilbert’s programme is a legal theory formulated by pioneering German jurist [[Havid Dilbert]]<ref>The programme and its progenitor owe nothing to Scott Adams and everything to [[William Archibald Spooner]], by the way.</ref> in the early part of the 21st century. Dilbert proposed it as a solution to an emerging foundational crisis in [[pedantry]], as various attempts to codify the fundamental essence of punctiliousness had foundered, beset by [[paradox]] and inconsistency. Dilbert proposed to ground all existing theories of quibblery to a finite, complete set of [[definitions]] and legal propositions, and provide a proof that these fundaments of captiousness were consistent. | ||
The | The “Dilbert programme”, as it become known, thus eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any [[legal instrument]], on the grounds that such uncertainty opens the way to an unstable state of [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | ||
Thus, wherever Dilbert | Thus, wherever Dilbert nouns, noun phrases , he defined them. where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | ||
Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == r<sub>n</sub>''.<ref>RE = Referential expression; ''r'' = Referent</ref> In this case, the thing being defined (the “referent”) and the label defining it (the “referring expression”) are identical, as illustrated in the following example: | Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == r<sub>n</sub>''.<ref>RE = Referential expression; ''r'' = Referent</ref> In this case, the thing being defined (the “referent”) and the label defining it (the “referring expression”) are identical, as illustrated in the following example: | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a [[Dilbert definition]] qualifies as an unusually stable type of [[Biggs hoson]], or whether it simply has null semantic content. | Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a [[Dilbert definition]] qualifies as an unusually stable type of [[Biggs hoson]], or whether it simply has null semantic content. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | |||
*[[Definitions]] | *[[Definitions]] | ||
*[[Biggs hoson]] | *[[Biggs hoson]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||