How do you know it's unjustified? You said beliefs are justified if they're true and unjustified if they're false. You can't know I'm unjustified unle...
I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. Some people in the world, in history, maybe now, ...
So, with that in mind, the question I guess is, "Can you ever be justified in believing in a statement when that statement is false?" or "Can you ever...
idk what "belief in false" means. I believe or disbelieve statements. Those statements can be true or false. But if I believe in a statement, and that...
If It helps, I'll reword a piece of my previous post: I said: The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it...
I'm not disagreeing with the JTB article. The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false". I'm disag...
You might be getting confused by who you're disagreeing with here. Those aren't my thoughts, those are the paraphrased thoughts of the person I'm spea...
That tripart seems to be doing exactly what I'm doing - separating "justified" and "true". It doesn't seem to me to support what you're saying. Otherw...
If what you say is right, that Justified <-> True, then it's pointless to say both. One or the other will suffice, because it implies the other. That'...
If that were how people were using the word 'justified', then either the T or the J would be superfluous in JTB. I don't think many people think that ...
Or consider this alternative example: instead of saying "that domino fell because the number 7 is prime", we can construct, in principle, a domino com...
The T in JTB is kinda awkward. If someone says they believe something, they're already saying they think it's true. If someone says they're justified ...
"Knowledge" is a very funny word. People try to formalize it in all sorts of weird ways, but I think most people, when they say they "know" something,...
I think there is a difference, but I don't think if you zoomed in on a chemical there's anything you could find that would tell you "this thing is def...
I think it might be related to the central issue. If we go back to that first moment of abiogenesis, then in my interpretation, a new chemical bond ge...
Here's a nice little educational resource that says it explictly: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/chemistry-of-life/elements-of-life/a/...
We're talking about abiogensis, which means the very first instance that a chemical arrangement formed something that we might choose to call "life" o...
I can tell you right now, if you asked 100 physicists and 100 chemists, they would all say atoms do not change how they behave based on if they're in ...
no, the particles don't go from non living to living. The particles are doing the same things they would always have done - atoms don't know they're p...
if miraculous means incredibly unlikely, then yeah, the first instance of life on earth was probably incredibly unlikely. However, given the number of...
I want to understand one thing and one thing from you only: can you always go from a implies b, to not a implies not b? Or can you only sometimes do t...
OK. You said this before: So that leaves me a little bit confused. Are you sure you want to say it's a general rule? Were you incorrect before when yo...
I'm a little confused by this proof. You told me a few posts ago that it's not a general rule, but if this proof were valid, it would be a general rul...
And you've acknowledged now as well that that doens't work in general (a -> b) -> (~a -> ~b) You said this isn't a general rule, which means there can...
Okay, this sounds like you're acknolweding that your logic that you called Modus Ponens was in fact not Modus Ponens. I appreciate you acknowledging t...
It's a shock to me that you call it modus ponens, which is a general rule, and then say now that it's not a general rule, without ever explicitly ackn...
Oh, fascinating. That's not what it sounded like when you called it Modus Ponens, because Modus Ponens is indeed a general rule. So you don't think it...
I would love to know who he can make see the light. One person who thinks (a -> b) leads to (~a -> ~b) as a general rule. I'd love to have a conversat...
Here's another logic book https://reader-service.z-library.se/reader-pdf/387cccf294949913ee2e9a2ef4687ceafd21b6effc11b65a211c579cd2817362?download_loc...
Ok, just for funsies, I found an Introduction to Logic textbook online. https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf End of page 24: Suppose, for insta...
Yeah I agree with that, but if you want to show him that you probably have to agree on an example to talk about first. You don't like the one he gave,...
I really want to see you answer Corvus scenario about the red lights. I'll post his scenario again. If red light, then drive away. R -> D If not red l...
It seems as though, with our one example of this situation on this forum, one has to be willing to see contradictions before one is able to see contra...
I'm just giving you a way to interpret it that leaves it as a logical implication still. It's of course a poor example anyway. Just giving him the ben...
Comments