Ennui Elucidator

Lots of great things about your post. I did a really bad job of trying to highlight truth of a system and truth external to the system in another post...

Which is what I am badly saying elsewhere.

I was responding to this question. Perhaps I misunderstood the tone.

I want very much to like this, but there are times when informal fallacies are useful - like appeals to authority or ad hominem when it is so much mor...

So this is a type of motivation of mine - to understand that where we have warrant for both X and ~X, that we shouldn’t somehow dismiss the warrant of...

Well I don’t understand the Bible in Latin or German, why should another German book that I don’t understand fail to qualify as a bible? The title sou...

I am suggesting quite the opposite - that if truthmakers are states of affairs, then logic should not be faulted for its failure to ensure rTruth. In ...

I appreciate that, however I am not sure that Michael was saying that. And yes, I should have asked him if he is rejecting the law of the excluded mid...

So you are abandoning the principle of bi-valance? Also, I think you are about to engage in a dangerous game when you suggest that P can be true and ~...

Realism, as being used here, is about people who think that what makes a proposition true is its relation to the states of affairs. I am not a realist...

If the verificationist hasn't verified it, it isn't true. The nice thing about being omniscient is that knowing everything that is true (i.e. every pr...

You keep saying this. Who says that verificationism doesn't require omniscience? If omniscience is knowing every true thing and every true thing is kn...

So why do you say that verificationism doesn't require omniscience? All truths are known.

You mean this definition? So Banno's verificationism says that everything that is true has been verified and you say that verificationism permits unkn...

I'm not so sure that Daemon accepts that the understanding is in the doing. A person and a robot acting identically on the line (see box, lift box, pu...

And this is the type of tension that I think the realist has - that logic is supposed to give warrant for the belief in rTruth, but the world doesn't ...

You seem stuck in social conventions and definitions. Forget social conventions and focus on mind-independent stuff, you know, the pre-interpreted sta...

On whose account of anti-realism? What is true that is unknown on their account and how does their account differ from realism?

That is the bit that most people lose, I think, that all conclusions are of necessity assumed in the premises. Logic is useful revealing novel relatio...

This feels much like a circle. Yes, there is no point to a logical argument about states of affairs because what makes propositions about states of af...

The argument form is already valid and isn't the least bit interesting. The "what makes it sound" part is what I am discussing. If soundness is judged...

I'll even quote myself in the OP.

So how do you evaluate soundness?

That isn't how logic works. A premise is assumed, not proven. The valid conclusion is of the form "If the premises are true, the conclusion must be tr...

It is a premise, I don't have to prove it to assume it.

But that is what my example shows you, I provided what is essentially a tautology in 1 and a claim about the world as a consequent of a conditional. T...

I believe this is where we diverge. Anti-realism isn't concerned with explosion as a logical matter, it (the middle-way anti-realism) is concerned wit...

That is the backwards part. Yes, rTrue for the world. But can 1 and 2 make 3 rTrue? If we want to know if 3 is rTrue, how is a proof used as a proxy f...

So let’s try to fix some of my ambiguity. This is exactly contrary to the way I am using “true.” Something is true when it is the state-of-affairs. Wh...

Not to dwell on the disagreement, but I think the motivation to paraconsistent logics is precisely about explosion rather than about propositions with...

And in case you didn’t read the Priest article I linked, here is a quote that you may find interesting.

3.5 in particular, yes? But my sense is that you don’t want a discussion of what is presented there, but a reaction. I further suspect that my reactio...

Sorry for being dense, what is the title of the article? For the sake of expedience, I am just going to assume you mean the one on Fitch’s Paradox of ...

I was summarily ignored when I posted this yesterday in another thread, so I will try it again here. So I wasn't going to comment, but then this artic...

He gets a "cheers" and I get to envy the size of your lunch. Bloody favoritism.

While functionally we likely agree, there is this amusing thought about how it could be that there is but one particle in all of reality that construc...

But even my six-year old knows when I've drunk from her glass of water instead of mine. Otherwise fungible things are rendered discrete from one anoth...

It is hard to not completely change topics and respond to your point. Suffice it to say that minds are really hard stuff. This may be due to the fact ...

And just because I think only one person briefly mentioned it, let's be a bit express about the Chinese Room and how it relates to minds and understan...

But isn't the point that understanding is a demonstration of proficiency? To the extent that a fly can escape from a bottle by other than chance, is t...

As I recall, @"Banno" won’t play nicely with me if I start going on about brains in vats and epistemological anti-realism. He may say something like, ...

And as a bit of an aside, this is a nice quote that harkens to some of the other threads floating around and @"Banno"’s comment that he is looking for...

@"Banno" I imagine you are aware of this, and yet I am curious what your instinctual response is. SEP on Realism and Independence Here is a bit @"Janu...

So I wasn't going to comment, but then this article kept showing up in my suggested reading. I happen to be a fan of Graham Priest and once upon a tim...

Just because I was thinking about it... The Great Fact You can ask @"Banno" to explain it. Perhaps your spell check is on to something - when it comes...

I don’t have you confused, but that doesn’t mean I am not confused. Though I will certainly grant that the change from “reality” to “fact” was mine an...

There is a difference between arguing for a special case in the face of a universal and saying that there is no universal. You know this and it is why...

But to your point, facts come at a cost, so we are likely to obtain only those facts that have a cost that we (or others) are willing to bear in order...

This is often the problem of facts, not just the counter-factual nature of how most people engage with them, but the way that they simple suppose beca...

@"Banno" maybe a simple example will illuminate the tension here: "It is a fact that Scrooge McDuck's nephew is Donald Duck." Is that an intelligible ...