Banno

Cheers. The wider point is that formal logic removes ambiguities in natural languages, which is what I take you have been saying.

My mistake. Not "If A then not A" means "not A or not A" but "If P then Q" means "not P or Q". "If P then Q" means "not P or Q" presumes an inclusive ...

Only if "or" is used inclusively. The ordinary language use is often exclusive, or ambiguous. So this doesn't help. https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3-...

You entirely missed the point. Sure, science tells us how things are. It does not tell us how they ought be. Even if "Science explains how things are ...

:zip:

If you don't think those arguments valid, then you haven't understood "validity". But we already knew that from your OP. And since you do not understa...

That's really sad.

Fine.

Ok. This is simply a restatement of the antirealist thesis that something can be true only if it can be demonstrated. Hence, if something can be true ...

Yeah, but ?p(p??Kp)??p(p?Kp) is valid. It's not enough for antirealists just to say they reject the entailment. Some explanation is needed. For middle...

Not following that. I'll have another look tomorrow.

Not too sure about that...

I don't see any reason to introduce modality. It just adds to the confusion. SO you want to introduce a new form of validity, that depends not on the ...

But there would be a notable improvement in the quality of search results.

Cheers. There are two distinct questions we might do well not to compound here. One is if that is a cup. The other is if that is in the dishwasher. Ex...

That the world has evolved in such-and-such a way does not imply what we ought to do. Saying otherwise is indulging in the Naturalistic Fallacy (the l...

I'm not sure what the distinction is doing here at all. You introduced it. But presumably, extensionally, X is a cup if and only if X is a cup. Extens...

Not so much, perhaps, since "This has nothing to do with scientific realism" yet " it's perfectly consistent with physicalism and scientific realism"....

A shame. I was hoping that it would be something to do with the software thinking "A -> not-A, A, ? not-A" invalid.

Still clinging to essentialism. There need be no specified thing that makes you, you. If you lose your memory, who is it who can't recall? The rope is...

I don't follow this. Non-classical logic is one way to defend anti-realism, but that does not rule out others. So Kripke's theory of truth is arguably...

Sure. As I said, This question also applies to . It is rather hard to see how "a cup exists only if there exists some X such that X is being seen or u...

What is going on here is not a pedantic mismatch between English and some esoteric academic exercise. Rather, there are ambiguities in the English use...

Is it worth pointing out, again, that "P?~P" is not a contradiction? If P?~P is true, then P is false. If that's been said once, it's been said a thou...

This uses the inclusive OR which is also not so standard in English.

I can't search in the specific thread "A -> not-A" In "advanced Search" entering "A -> not-A" in the discussion title does not proved that option in t...

Philosophical Plumbing

And yet here we are. Turns out folk do speak like that. If this thread is not long enough, then it is long enough.

That strikes me as ad hoc - introducing a needless distinction in order to maintain a position that has been shown errant. The topic is the truth of "...

I puzzle as to, if you do not know what a mind is, how will you be able to tell that your definition is correct?

I thought you decided not to read my posts. Sure, beliefs have an impact on behaviour. And behaviours have an impact on belief. My point is that how t...

Not at all a loaded question, that one. You cant taste oysters without using your mouth, therefore you can't tase oysters as they are in themselves. M...

So did you change your opinion?

I'll leave you to it. I can't make much of your comment. I'm not sufficiently effete, perhaps. In a way Wittgenstein subsumed and then expanded Schope...

Those games can be coherent. Hence their appeal.

The will is shown in the doing.

Pretty much. Perhaps it's about joining up the stuff we can talk about in a coherent fashion. Of course, you can show stuff as well as say it.

I don't see as we need the mysticism. Gender as a case in point. Some folk need there to be only two genders, and so force everything into this or tha...

Sure. Folk want to talk about stuff about which they can't say anything. Off-topic, but be my guest.

Kant perhaps would have agreed with Wittgenstein. And if they are right, than we can do away with the so often repeated idea that somehow it is import...

This might be right. But it is worth noting that there are things that you know, believe or are certain. Moore made the claim that "Here is a hand". O...

There is, actually, curtesy of Wittgenstein's beetle in a box argument. We can say nothing about the supposed thing-in-itself, so it cannot have a use...

SO to your OP. Your account is quite neat. I'll take it that we are here talking about realism as it applies to ontology - to what exists and what doe...

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more. This is a regular topic. What follows is a re-write of stuff from three years ago. Speaking very r...

My apologies. So Davidson took truth as primitive, using it to define meaning, Wittgenstein took use as primitive, using it to talk about truth. David...

That's part of the problem - it was one of the topics I briefly considered for a Doctorate I (thankfully) decided not to pursue. A long time ago. Roug...

Yep.

If an epistemological theory leads us to think we don't know anything, isn't that just evidence that the theory has gone astray? You know you are read...

It's not as if you can do just anything with words - TONK is useless.

Ok, that's neat - formal languages as decidable.