Yeah, I don't see how this is arguable, really. You could just point to the fact that cells divide to become two cells with all of the features that o...
Yeah, after reading a bit about and by Kastrup yesterday, I got the impression that it's a wide-ranging Copenhagen interpretation, half-motivated by K...
Even with technical aspects, there still are no factual/human-independent valuations. It still comes down to what people like/dislike, and it's still ...
Sure. So what you'd have to do is show some sort of evidence for there being a fact that one possibility is better or worse than another. (Anything yo...
First, if you read what I just wrote, I obviously believe there can be experts in general. It's just that you can't be an expert on value judgments, b...
The point is that in order to be an expert at x, it has to be possible to get claims about x right or wrong. So, for example, you can't be an expert o...
Yes to the first question, and no, it's not unethical in my view. What's unethical in my view is to be an apologist for bullshit, for gobbledygook. If...
No. I'm not saying it's arbitrary (presumably you mean that in the sense of "random.") I'm saying that the value of football players to a club is not ...
The value of the judgments made is subjective/it's something that each individual determines for him/herself based on highly variable criteria. So I w...
You can't be more or less an expert in a field where there aren't facts to get right or wrong. So one can't be more of an expert than another when it ...
"To some physicists, this indicates that all the matter, with its solidity and concreteness, is an illusion that only the mathematical apparatus they ...
Yeah, right after I stopped to ask I saw that he got more into the stuff you were talking about. First, leading up to that, when he says, "Religious b...
Is there a particular part of this lecture that you'd say hones in on what you want to focus on in this thread? I'm just asking because I'm 15 minutes...
It's certainly believed by me that it's neither a fact nor true that there are things we ought/ought not believe. I have a disposition that there are ...
Just start with this. You claimed that someone was saying or something implied the following: "something that 'is the case' neither is nor is not the ...
The idea is rather that the values are a fact, somehow as a necessary upshot of facts in general. How that's supposed to work is left completely unatt...
Where is someone saying that something be a fact, or being the case, where the latter is another way of saying "is the case," isn't a fact or isn't th...
We're not saying that the cat being on the mat is not the case. "Is the case" is another way of saying "is a fact." It's not another way of saying "is...
That's what I said at the start though. Validity obtains when it's impossible for premises to be true and(/or--I add or for reasons I detailed in my f...
The fact is neither true nor false. A proposition about the fact is true or false. Propositions are the sorts of things you say, such as "The cat is s...
Sure, so here are some things I found very quickly online for you. https://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Technical%20Validity.pdf Tha...
Yes, the matching is what's true (on correspondence theory). The matching is a property of proposition. In other words, the proposition matches the fa...
You're giving misinformation. I don't know why. It's not even clear at this point if you agree that traditionally (that is, not in relevance logics, w...
That was anything but clear. It's very simple. Contradictory premises are sufficient for a valid argument (in non-relevance logics) due to the definit...
On correspondence theory, "The cat is on the mat" (a proposition, which we're denoting by putting it in quotation marks) matches the cat being on the ...
Because what it refers to to be "true" is that the proposition corresponds to a fact. In other words, it "matches" the fact. The fact itself wouldn't ...
It's as if you didn't read or couldn't comprehend what I wrote. You are giving misinformation if you're saying that under traditional (NOT relevance-l...
Re "things" it depends on how you're using that term. Some people use it "technically" where they seem to use it as more or less a synonym for "object...
What I was curious about was whether you're not interested in (learning (about)) philosophy. You've already demonstrated that you're not going to list...
All you're doing here is telling me why you couldn't care less about the convention in philosophy and the sciences. Which is why I asked if you're not...
You're giving misinformation here. You're favoring a relevance logic interpretation, which is fine (I favor that, too), but that's a far more recent i...
I'm asking because there are good reasons, well-accepted, with long philosophical arguments behind them, why "fact" and "truth" are used as they are i...
Comments