No argument here. Either a term is a referring term or it isn't; we do at least agree on that. What we don't agree on is what it means to say of a term that it's a referring term.

Ah, but don't we! Ordinarily, I would be fighting along side you on this issue, as I dislike it when people try to use stipulative definitions while trying to pawn them off as lexical definitions. But, this isn't such a case. You keep speaking of the lexical usage of the term "referring" when you speak of the term "referring term," as if it has a bearing on the issue, and that is the mistake I believe you are making, for although the term "referring" is in our lexicon, we cannot therefore conclude that the term "referring term" means what you think it means based on such a thing.

You think that a term that refers is a referring term, and though all terms that refer are referring terms, not all referring terms refer, but you think that's a mistake that I am making, but your argument to demonstrate that I am making a mistake doesn't add up because you don't consider the fact you ought to be considering the term "referring term" as a single term in its own right.

The reasoning that you employ would work well if you were talking about the term "toy car," for what the term "toy" means has a direct bearing on what the term "toy car" means, but I deny that the term "referring" has as a direct meaning on the term "referring term" as does the term "toy" have on "toy car."

Sometimes, we can tell what a multi-worded term means by having an understanding of what each word that comprises the term means, but that it is sometimes the case isn't to say that it is always the case. It is not the case with the term "referring term," and it's not the case with the term "free will." It is the case with the term "toy car". The term "toy car" is not a technical term, but the term "referring term" is.

Determining what the meaning of a technical word is can sometimes be (as has been eluded to) a work of art. That you turn to the lexical usage of "referring" and point out the fact that it's a success term is fine as a starting point, but because the term is much unlike the term "toy car" in that it's a technical term is what in part fuels my resistance.

Maybe my ducks are not in line either, and perhaps I too should sit out a spell to gather them together.

As far as I can see, you've failed to explain why you would call "Clark Kent" a referring term when you believe it cannot ever refer to Clark Kent.

Is it because when people use the name 'Clark Kent' correcty they often use it to refer to Clark Kent?

Wait a minute. How come "although" can't refer, but "The Fountain of Youth" can? That's a little arbitrary. I can certainly name my kid "although," can't I?

If "Clark Kent" did refer, I know exactly who it would refer to; it would refer to none other than Clark Kent.

Really? Why would you think that? Is it because it is the name of Clark Kent? But why would you think it is the name of Clark Kent when it is not possible to use that name to refer to Clark Kent?

If Clark Kent existed it would. That is what fast means. It happens not to be possible because there is no Clark Kent.

. It makes sense to say "I pretend to talk about Santa Claus" or "he believes there are unicorns", but it does not make sense to say "I pretend to talk about And" or "he believes there are althoughs".

Yet people use 'Clark Kent' to refer to Clark Kent all the time. If they used that name to refer to Daffy Duck then they would be using it incorrectly.

Can you tell me what gammatical rule they are violating by using 'Clark Kent' to refer to Clark Kent? I am unaware of any such rule.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:21 AM ----------

Today we tend to describe the world using numbers. Because of that we can bring beauty down to a set of numbers, life down to a four line equasion, etc. But is this the best way to describe the traits and patterns of the world? Inthe case of beauty, we can define bit with numbers, but we can't CREATE it. But with words, we can truly create beauty; we can describe the elements of life and we also can explore that which numbers cannot. Death, reality, and love. So what do you guys think?

None. What makes you think they would breaking a grammatical rule? They just could not do it, because CK does not exist.

Yet people do refer to Clark Kent using the name 'Clark Kent'. They don't use the name 'Daffy Duck' to refer to Clark Kent. That would be incorrect.

We are talking about the use of words here. Why wouldn't the rules for the use of those words be relevant here?

I could understand it if 'to refer' meant the same as 'to touch'. Since Clark Kent does not exist, I cannot touch him. But when we use words to refer we aren't touching the referent.

Can I also refer to Josiah Jason?

If there is somebody named that.
I don't happen to know anyone named that.

Who is he?

Oh, I just made him up on the spur of the moment. So what? I am referring to him. Right?

Agreed. But it would be useful to have a name for the class of terms (names or descriptions) that meet condition (a) but not condition (b). That class includes "Santa Claus" and "unicorn" but not "and" or "although". It makes sense to say "I pretend to talk about Santa Claus" or "he believes there are unicorns", but it does not make sense to say "I pretend to talk about And" or "he believes there are althoughs". I think this is the distinction that Fast has in mind.

I think Fast and Kennethamy regard the expression "referring term" as grammatically equivalent to "washing machine". A washing machine is not necessarily one that is washing. That is where the confusion has arisen.

Today we tend to describe the world using numbers. Because of that we can bring beauty down to a set of numbers, life down to a four line equasion, etc. But is this the best way to describe the traits and patterns of the world? Inthe case of beauty, we can define bit with numbers, but we can't CREATE it. But with words, we can truly create beauty; we can describe the elements of life and we also can explore that which numbers cannot. Death, reality, and love. So what do you guys think?

Sometimes, we can tell what a multi-worded term means by having an understanding of what each word that comprises the term means, but that it is sometimes the case isn't to say that it is always the case. It is not the case with the term "referring term," and it's not the case with the term "free will." It is the case with the term "toy car". The term "toy car" is not a technical term, but the term "referring term" is.

why does referring this or that matter at all ?

since we are talking about numbers VS words

has this become semantics of words , only

where is the number point of view ?

As often happens in very long threads like this one, the posters get sidetracked into a related side issue. Maybe the moderators can move this discussion off into another thread. I doubt anyone would object to that.

You must be or I wouldn't know that you are referring to an imaginary being you just made up. when you use that name.

This is perfectly in accord with the conventional use of 'to refer'. Neither you nor I have violated any grammatical rules in giving a name to an imaginary being and using that name to refer to this imaginary being.

Do you need to remind you that fast and myself are talking about words, and the title of this thread is "numbers vs. words"? No one is talking about God, or time, or morality, or metaphysical identity, etc.