Yeah I think you are right, though I would say that a post-scarcity economy is necessary for a single world government but not sufficient. Look at the...
Fair enough. I imagine much smaller and more practical steps like more discussion spaces and technical changes to how elections work, than empires cru...
Start with getting people talking about it. Talking more and swapping ideas more is one reason I joined this forum. More discussion about politics in ...
The nation states do have the authority to oppose the accumulation of ultra wealth. They choose not to because of thought orthodoxy, inertia, or corru...
Fair enough, that is probably correct. I would add though, that syllogistic logic is not the only logic and much of science uses inductive logic. In t...
That argument is a case of wrong premises and a case of wrong logical form. But I think I understand what you are trying to say anyway, and agree so w...
To be honest I have used it that way as well. I'm sure I have called a sound argument a valid one many times. It just caused more confusion in this in...
I'll try to express the following without either valid or sound, because now every time I see those words in your post I wonder in which way they are ...
I'm afraid I still don;t understand this line: "We can have logically sound arguments that are empirically false, yet still be sound according to our ...
The issue is that beast has no external entity to critique it, to constraint it, to make it justify it's actions. I find that a problem. If you did no...
No I'm saying it is the exact opposite. I.E swap "sound" with "valid" in the above sentence. All postman are Martians Mark is a Postman Therefore Mark...
I don't understand, do you mind restating that question? The truth of the premises in respect the validity of the argument? Or the truth of the premis...
As far far as I know, a valid argument is one with correct form. The conclusion must be true if the premises are true. A sound argument is a valid arg...
I am of the view that monopolies corrupt, and this does also apply to government. I was speaking to a politics graduate a few years back and he expres...
I think this is because the majority of philosophical disagreements on this forum occur not in the logical structure, but rather in the premises for. ...
Yes the justification does a lot of heavy lifting. I need to give it more thought, but there are two ways in which I see this justification happening ...
Absolutely, that is exactly my point. So when anyone says "I know..." this indicates they have a justified belief. The T in JTB is objective truth, an...
It does away with the T, and replaces it with more justification. Because I do not have direct access to Truth (as in objective truth independent of w...
No. 1)In the case that T exists, then X 2)In the case that T does not exist, then X As long as I cover every case for T, then I do not need to justify...
Not absolutely sure of your point, are you asking how could I say "I know..." about anything, if I am not using JTB? The answer is simple - I use a di...
The assumption of X and the assumption of not X are in two different cases. Each case is separate, there is no incoherence. Proof by case analysis is ...
What you have missed in that example is the conditional statements (or if statements, or case statements). I am going to argue that I am not guilty of...
I disagree. I can structure an argument such as as follows: I will show X 1) If Y is not true ... Then X 2) If Y is true ... Then X Therefore X If I d...
My original general assertion, is that we should dispense with the T in JTB. JTB asserts that the T is objective, absolute truth. If there is no absol...
No my justification if for my belief in what the T means in the formulation of the JTB theory. I am arguing against the T in JBT. That is the T that w...
Another way to put my argument is: Knowledge is epistemology, yet JTB attempts to define it in terms of metaphysics. However, when anyone says "I know...
This truth is what T in JTB refers to (as far as I understand - I am not an expert on the matter). So really you should be asking proponents of JTB th...
My argument is that I cant directly "know" Metaphysical truth. That is absolute, objective truth. That is what is true regardless of what I think, reg...
And are you able to get this justification? If you are not able to, you do not know the election is stolen. So go away, look at the evidence and try t...
It says it is independent on your view on the matter, my view on the matter, anybodies' view on the matter. This truth plays no part in my use of "I k...
The T in JTB, as far as I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), is objective absolute truth. It is what is true regardless of what I think abo...
But that lack of doubt is due to strong beliefs and/or good justification. They are not due to that person having direct access to objective metaphysi...
Yes that is right. but I'm not referring to those cases. There are people who have said "The Earth orbits around the sun." They said that because they...
Not all of them - I don't know what I don't know. I just know that I am capable of being wrong. and I know this not using JTB but using JMAOJB. Surely...
However you want, you can not directly access metaphysical truth, whatever method you use. So when you say you "arrive at the truth," you arrive at en...
But no one pays any heed to this definition of knowledge when uttering "I know ..." Hence I am suggesting there exists another definition for knowledg...
Because I believe I have justification that beliefs can be wrong. I believe this belief can also be wrong. I believe this belief.... To snap out of th...
Moore's paradox, as far as I understand, is that I can't simultaneously hold the following sentences: -"I believe the Earth is not flat" -"The Earth i...
Yes, what I think is along the lines of what you have said there. And to put my views more succinctly, in JBT knowledge (epistemology) is being define...
But I understand that I can have incorrect beliefs. I understand that just because I believe something, that does not make it true. Does that answer y...
Nevertheless, I see others saying "I know the Earth is not flat." I ask one of them to explain themselves. Overwhelmingly they say: 1) I believe the e...
True! But I'm not sure that corresponds to a p=0.5, as you suggested in the OP. I don't think the following two mean the same thing: 1) "I don't know ...
If by agnostic your mean p=0.5 (as you said in your OP), I would disagree that it is reasonable to think that there is a 50 percent chance that we wil...
The theory of heat death is postulating a state where entropy has increased to a point where it can no longer increase. This state does not mean there...
Comments