Banno

:rofl:

Good point, that even if we grant it, a predisposition for hierarchies might well be something that males ought overcome.

Wonderful stuff. How to respond to someone who quotes material that contradicts his view, as if it were in support of his view? Nothing to support you...

Apocryphal has it that there was a debate in the House of Lords during a famine in Bangladesh, in which one Lord lamented the thousands who were starv...

So how does this imply a creator? Anselm's "and this we all call god"? Finish the argument. That's just not accepted, as Hawking showed, for example i...

I very much doubt it.

Funny how apologists run away to metaphor at the first sign of critique. "I didn't mean it..." I'm guessing you won't want to fill these out, and if w...

When an argument so badly misrepresent a whole field of knowledge, a short reply will not suffice. And I'm not too happy about drawing attention to th...

I admire your civility.

The anthropology in this is dreadful. But I'm guessing mere facts are not as important to you as maintaining the rage. Laugh and walk away.

And they are...?

What's with the "we" bit? No one around today ever lived in the Garden of Eden, nor ate from the tree there. Rather, your god thinks that children sho...

There's something a bit mad in continuing here, but... There's an ambiguity about that, between the clock being broken and S believing it is broken. S...

Unlike you to resort to ad hom and mischaracterisation. Oh, well. I don't see anything new to respond to in your post, yet your argument remains obscu...

, , Yeah, sure. All that trite bullshit. Just not today.

Oh, be my guest. But making shite up is not philosophy.

Yes, it's just a question of how you choose to talk about stuff; of grammar. So some folk choose a non-bivalent logic, such that there are proposition...

Only Hegel comes with a whole new set of problems.

Yep, and there is a step further: that there is not anything beyond our experience and cognition - that the notion of a thing-in-itself doesn't get of...

The unaddressed point remains: to believe the p is to believe that p is true. We add belief to truth because what we believe is not what is true. Some...

I think it time you did the work of setting out your issue clearly.

Perhaps it's a language issue, but to say that something is true, is to say that it is reality, it is what is the case. To say that we cannot have the...

Ah, we cannot have access to the truth. And so it follows that what anyone says must not be the truth, else we woudl have access to the truth. Yet sin...

Yep. As in my initial reply,

Sure, Janus, if you like. The salient bit is that to believe that p is to believe that p is true. Yep. the presumption that truth is divalent. The alt...

The whole apparatus developed here shows the opposite. It's pretty simple. You believe (the clock is broken) S believes (the clock is not broken) As i...

Then for all our sakes, set out how!

I'm not seeing it. It seems pretty straight forward to me, but ten years of apparent disagreement seem to show that I am mistaken.

Beliefs "emerge onto the world stage" as ways of expressing what folk hold as true, as opposed to what is indeed true. S beleives the clock to be brok...

There is only one clock. x. What differs is the propositions you, I and S take as being true of that clock Sure. I agree entirely.

Good. I am glad to be wrong here. Let's try a slightly different approach. "The broken clock" cannot refer to the clock in S's beliefs, because that c...

Banno's law: the easiest way to critique some view is to begin by misunderstanding it. But the issue I have here is that I havn't been able to put tog...

I'm sorry you can't see the arguments. Here's the first, set out explicitly. The first argument is simply to note the difference between truth and bel...

Yep.

I'm guessing creative thinks I think dogs have unspoken propositions in their minds.

Glad that I'm not missing something obvious, then. I was wondering. I'm not seeing how time makes a difference here - a bit of a prejudice of mine, as...

Ah, that was a reply to , not Janus.

Ok, did that. You take belief to be some sort of mental furnishing, while I take it to be some sort of stopgap imputation used in explanations of inte...

I am. Maybe your position is not as clear as you suppose.

Yep. What's the problem?

I don't think so. You just hid truth in "better and better". You are just paraphrasing "A statement is better if it more closely approximates the trut...

What to do with this? Cheers, benj. Photons all travel at the speed of light, mitigated only by the refractive index of the medium. And they do interf...

But someone who believed the clock was working would say that it was working. Not following you at all. Russell's example is usually used as an early ...

Sure, the clock is not a proposition, nor an attitude. . But "The clock is broken" is a proposition, and to believe that the clock is broken is to ado...

I'm sorry, I still can't make sense of this. I see that you are using curls to mark sets, and it seems you are using "f" for both a non-specific funct...

Well, no. Pointing out that you repeatedly produce bad arguments is not an ad hom. It would be an ad hom if I'd said your arguments were bad because o...

Looks like gobbledegook dressed in formal clothing. So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a pre...

No.

What is that? It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld.

Ah. That: X is accurate. X rigidly designates the clock, broken or unbroken. That's what allows the ambiguity to be shown. Perhaps we can jump ahead a...