I wasn't saying "truth" is only correctly captured by correspondence theory, just that since that theory of truth is a fairly normal way people unders...
That's just pushing the issue off to say it's truths about imagined things (obviously this is right). Truths about imagined things are truths about th...
Isn't the whole issue that one can say true things about objects that don't exist? If I say "Sherlock Holmes is a clever detective" few will say it's ...
That's not comparable. Separate pillows are not the same object nor are they logical negations of each other. Beliefs of a single person at a specific...
No. I made no doubts that things exist. My point, which you didn't even attempt to address, was that you haven't given anything like a useful definiti...
That doesn't explain anything. Is *what*? You're not linking anything to existence here, you're just saying there things which exist and things which ...
No no, you were giving a definition of existence and then the implications you drew from it seemed incoherent. You quoted a definition saying existenc...
OP is nothing but arguments by what look like dictionary definitions as well as repeated affirmations of things not argued for and by using sloppy lan...
I'd say observing a thing reliably and consistently being some way if perfectly fine way of establishing something to be true generally. That's not sc...
Then why not make this general consensus business the method of establishing truth? Because either way your initial postulate is false on pain of vici...
But accessibility relations are determined by the properties of the modal logic in use (basically which worlds can quantify over other worlds given ce...
What I thought you were suggesting was that this was what was done after they took power. That was my mistake. I think this is the main thing I found ...
It wouldn't be a counterexample to Darapti in Aristotelian logic, but that's because it makes the assumption that non-referring terms are to be disall...
I believe "There exists" is usually pretty unambiguous. Obviously a context can change that but it doesn't make it a valid argument to move from a cat...
What I said was that saying there is something that is such and such does not follow from talking about a category of things. Of course you can tweak ...
Unless you explicitly say you're speaking about some type of fictional scenario, no otherwise the statement is clearly false. It's understood as sayin...
I don't even agree with dropping free speech but why would you say something so clearly false as a means to support free speech? Nazis came to power u...
If one doesn't stipulated what domain of discourse one is speaking in (or if the argument doesn't make it obvious) then the assumption is that they're...
That's literally the standard theory of quantifiers used in virtually every modern deductive logic, whether classical, intuitionist, paraconsistent, o...
Well yes,that doesn't make them untrue in the external world, because then they'd be false which sounds incorrect. The terms have to have a definition...
Except when you give the argument an interpretation, what makes a premise true is going to be some truth maker. We have a model (the real world) and i...
The problem is the premises are true. Are you seriously denying that all winged horses are horses or that they have wings? If so then it has to be a t...
That's more or less what I'm saying. That's what makes it invalid. The class can't be assumed to have members unless we state that it does. Aristotle ...
um, no. Validity is defined as truth preservation over all cases. As we know the first two premises of the argument are true, yet the conclusion is fa...
!!! oops, that was supposed to say n x 2 = n + n. Mea culpa. Anyway, what I'm saying is there doesn't need to be anything that instantiates this for u...
I didn't say it couldn't be satisfied, what I said was that quantifying over all the elements of a set does not entail the set has members who exist (...
Unless you can point to where the winged horses are you cannot say it's valid. If the conclusion of an argument is false in spite of true premises, th...
Any time one uses the universal quantifier I would think. "For each natural number n, "n x n" = "n + n". That does not assume there is some existing n...
False, spacetime is real as in it's part of the model of physical reality as understood by both QM and Relativity. It's not merely extremely useful, t...
No, the structure was all F that E can be predicated of are E all F that G can be predicated of G, therefore some E is G. The predicates winged-horse ...
The issue of the arrow of time is well known in physics. The idea that it's not something that's ever been critically looked at or thought about by ph...
Spacetime is modelled. Like what are you talking about? When I say it's part of the model I mean we have a set of propositions in a theory based on ob...
But that's exactly the point. An invalid argument doesn't mean the conclusion is false, it means the form of the argument is such that the truth of th...
Sure but as I said empty terms show this to be improper. As your quotesaid, Aristotle stipulated that logic was to regard known existing things and th...
But what would make it valid or not would be for a precedent to be set by a judge ruling on the case. Prior to that it's a contradiction in the law. O...
This is correct. That's actually the definition of contingency. Possibility is just defined as truth in at least one world. Necessary truths, for exam...
What? The problem with that is the argument is just the form, not the truth value of the two premises. All bouncy orange balls are bouncy, all bouncy ...
No no no, the premises ARE true. That's what you keep ignoring. All winged horses are horses. So too do all winged horses have wings. An argument's st...
You're not making sense. Previously you said this: Which means that given the truth of the first two premises (All winged-horses are horses; All winge...
That's not right. I am looking outside the logic, so I am deriving "this is true in the actual world because such and such is true". Winged horses do ...
But logic is used to analyze what actually exists and infer things about them. If I am taller than Terrapin, and Terrapin is taller than aletheist, th...
Yes. As I said, we know the argument form is invalid but Darapti was regarded by Aristotle and the medieval logicians as valid. You cannot validity ma...
I'm not really sure what you're pointing at. All the top answers say more or less what I do. It's always taken to be continuous and positing a discret...
I'm not sure I even understand you here. Magical in the sense that it exists or acts in some manner inconsistent with the laws of the physical world. ...
On this basis one can never ever at all give a truth value to any proposition that does not contradict itself. In which case you've lost the ability t...
No, it doesn't follow otherwise one could not posit a counterexample. The universal quantifier does not imply existence, this is a known fact about th...
But the conclusion does not follow from the premises. We know in the actual world that the conclusion is false so we have a counter example to the inf...
Ok? The point is the argument form is invalid because it can take one from definitely true premises to a definitely false conclusion. In modern logic ...
Comments