Constructive Semantics

We can be confused by the fact that breaking some rules (e.g. non-contradiction) destroys semantic content.  We can't conclude from this that there is a set of rules which, if followed, guarantees semantic content.

In fact, the OQ argument would suggest otherwise - because we would need to know what these rules meant.

A constructive semantics could be quite rough and ready, and contain many unresolved ambiguities, and still do the work that is required of it (i.e. make semantic determination tractable).  What would also be required would be a method for resolving the ambiguities and cleaning up any loose ends that became problems, and this method could be (I think would need to be) experimental.

What we can't tell, however, is whether there are some things that we resolve by experiment that could be worked out from some set of rules that we are (unknowingly?) following.  For this to make sense, the rules would have to be discoverable - but the OQ problem doesn't rule this out.  It just rules out the discovery of a complete set of rules.