You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Terrapin Station

Comments

Well, then "x can not be true in logic without contradiction" is just nonsense, unless we're talking about some weird paraconsistent logic with necess...
December 27, 2016 at 17:51
What the heck does "true in logic" even refer to in this context?
December 27, 2016 at 17:33
The only place where logical validity enters the picture is that if one accepts the premises that truth values are identical to judgments about propos...
December 27, 2016 at 17:31
I disagree with the premise that logic is what "permits" or "doesn't permit" truth values. (A fortiori because I'd say that logic isn't in the permiss...
December 27, 2016 at 17:23
That's certainly not my view. What would the argument be for that?
December 27, 2016 at 17:21
Sure, it's neither true nor false in (1). We agree on that.
December 27, 2016 at 17:19
(1) IN POSSIBLE WORLD X "There is no logic in world x" (2) IN POSSIBLE WORLD Y "There is no logic in world x" That's true (in my view) in (2), and nei...
December 27, 2016 at 17:18
Right. You understand my view.
December 27, 2016 at 17:15
Seriously, what the fuck? I'm not saying anything about doubt or certainty. PERIOD.
December 27, 2016 at 17:14
Correct. It's rather a fact that it's not true or false.
December 27, 2016 at 17:13
??? I'm not and I wouldn't be arguing anything about certainty. That doesn't imply that I'm not (psychologically) certain about something. But certain...
December 27, 2016 at 17:12
Right IN POSSIBLE WORLD X It is not true or false that there is no logic. However, it is a fact that there is no logic.
December 27, 2016 at 17:10
It's true in possible world y that there's no logic in world x. In possible world x, nothing is true or false. It's simply a fact that there is no log...
December 27, 2016 at 17:07
Which I'm challenging you to make explicit then. What specifically is a conclusion that's being mentioned in the premises of an argument?
December 27, 2016 at 17:06
No, it's not. There are a couple possible reasons for this, depending on just what we have in mind contextually re the possible worlds in question: Ra...
December 27, 2016 at 17:03
It wouldn't be possible to talk about contrapositives where there is no truth value.
December 27, 2016 at 16:56
Right, that's what I've been trying to make clear to him via clearing up what seems to be confusion about context with respect to possible worlds. (An...
December 27, 2016 at 16:56
Are you talking about the contrapositive of some claim in world x, that is, inside that circle?
December 27, 2016 at 16:54
Sorry--I got mixed up on Peirce's definitions. Okay. But it still seems like the only significant difference, though, is that you'd be saying that wha...
December 27, 2016 at 16:52
??? What conditional are we referring to, first off?--"If there are no judgments, there is no truth-value"? The contrapositive of that is, "If there i...
December 27, 2016 at 16:47
I can't really make sense out of that last post: "I'm saying (that via?) logic your claims do not (possess?) truth value because they are claims that ...
December 27, 2016 at 16:16
Okay, but there's no logic in world x, is there?
December 27, 2016 at 16:13
Ah--you're saying inside of world x? Yeah, inside of world x, nothing has any truth value. That has no implication on whether truths are judgments tho...
December 27, 2016 at 16:12
As stated, that's not at all a consequence. You'd have to spell out the implication, because as it stands it's a non-sequitur. You're simply claiming ...
December 27, 2016 at 16:06
Would I say that inside of possible world x, that is, limiting it to what's inside of that circle above marked as "Possible World X," it's true or fal...
December 27, 2016 at 16:00
Here's an illustrative aid that makes it a bit easier to think about the question: https://s23.postimg.org/dwidnpwnv/Possible_World_X.jpg https://s30....
December 27, 2016 at 15:47
Right, so first off, if we're talking about a probability argument, what sort of data are we using for our probability statements?
December 27, 2016 at 15:42
I'm interested in the conversation getting somewhere (in my assessment). This is how it would get somewhere.
December 27, 2016 at 15:31
That's a yes or no question. Either I would say that or I wouldn't (and I'll give you a 50/50 chance--either yes or no is correct here). At the moment...
December 27, 2016 at 15:29
That certainly doesn't follow. Joe believes in God. Joe doesn't believe that God has communicated with him. Joe says that God has communicated with hi...
December 27, 2016 at 15:27
Would I say that in world x, where there are no minds, it's true in world x that there are no truths?
December 27, 2016 at 15:15
If it gets right. If the belief coheres with what's the case in the world. it's not at all impossible to claim that x communicated with you without re...
December 27, 2016 at 15:12
What? But nothing in that sentence is implied by "The atheistic belief has right what the world is like." This conclusion works just as well: "The ath...
December 27, 2016 at 15:00
Yeah, what I presented was nominalism. (Which was the whole point of that.) It seems like the only significant difference, though, is that you'd be sa...
December 27, 2016 at 14:55
Re comments in the thread in general, Fodor's representational theory of mind is not a theory of perception. It's a theory of how mind works in genera...
December 27, 2016 at 14:50
Okay, so if the atheistic belief has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _____? (And then what's t...
December 27, 2016 at 14:46
One of my objections would be this: the only way that a Turing machine manipulating symbols in a purely syntactical manner and executing truth-preserv...
December 27, 2016 at 14:45
Okay, so how would "A lack of belief in God" being true (do you mean it's true that the person has a lack of belief in God? Or are you more saying if ...
December 27, 2016 at 14:18
What do you take atheism to be, first off?
December 27, 2016 at 14:14
What are you talking about? Are you positing something like the idea that "atheists created religions"??? (And what would that have to do with the top...
December 27, 2016 at 14:10
No one is saying they're identical. You asked why they're associated with each other. That's why. An association is different than not being separate....
December 27, 2016 at 13:57
Religions have content that's socially conservative. Gods, prophets, etc.(whatever it might be depending on the religion at hand) supposedly issue dec...
December 27, 2016 at 13:51
Once "likes" reach a particular number, we could have a "circle-jerk seal of approval" icon. If a user has a certain number of liked posts/threads tha...
December 27, 2016 at 13:48
Yeah, something that encourages more cliqueyness and herd conformity sounds like a great idea. Let's figure out some way to use peer pressure more eff...
December 27, 2016 at 13:24
Right, so given that, how would we avoid a formulation at all resembling the "golden rule" where it wouldn't be consistent with people behaving in way...
December 27, 2016 at 13:01
I don't care anything about "duty" pro or con here. So I don't care whether anything is or isn't anyone's duty in anyone's opinion. You had said: I'm ...
December 27, 2016 at 12:57
That sounds to me like you're saying that if one were to feel something strongly enough, one would necessarily come to the conclusion that it can't ju...
December 27, 2016 at 12:54
Actually, given what you wrote there, we very much disagree. With the unicorn example, what's at issue is whether a particular sort of creature exists...
December 27, 2016 at 12:50
No, I'm not saying anything about you agreeing with me. I'm saying something about whether you even understand the view you're critiquing. If you unde...
December 27, 2016 at 12:42
As would I. What would that even have to do with me answering 4? You had just brought up meanings and the issue of whether we can know that we have th...
December 27, 2016 at 12:28