Banno

One salient fact about your square example is that there is a criteria for success. Oh, indeed. Apparently Woo is a philosophical street gang from New...

Well, they do, just in virtue of having an opinion. Free speech is a fetish. Is it OK to spread falsehoods that undermine public health? I say no. I'v...

Yeah. I'm not that interested in foreign affairs. There's nothing very convncing there - jus tmore accusations. I suport this: Looks good to me.

SO do you folk agree that opposing the vaccine is a bad thing? I mean, do oyu honestly think that folk ought not get vaccinated? Why?

Hm. I'm not too worried about unattributed accusations. Anything more concrete?

An argument for more woo. What is woo, anyway? Whence the term? I googled it and got Or this.

...all the usual suspects with their codified posts. Meh.

Links? Can you support this?

Hmm. Much as I wish it were true, I'm not seeing it.

Society is always collapsing. And at the same time, being built. Your choice is which you will work towards.

Crows don't have hands.

In the absence of the article, you can't know that he did. But if Reagan did not win, it would have been Carter. And it is this that is in contrast wt...

But being awake does feel different to being asleep. Therefore, the assumption is wrong, and there are things that can be know.

So what does your analysis tell us about Carter?

Seems we have agreement that modus ponens is not invalidated by the argument in the OP; that the premises are true, the argument valid and the conclus...

...as if philosophy were fashion. There's a section in Philosophy Now that provides news on recent events involving philosophers. That'll do. Otherwis...

Good to have you back in the conversation, since it is your OP. Scepticism has a habit of capturing one's attention. Once one learns to question every...

And...? Indeed it does, but that's not the motive here. Rather its just the observation that saying one knows something that is false is an erroneous ...

And yet we know that this thread is in English.

I'm not wrong about anything I know.

If you had said "knowledge is a belief that is not false" we might have agreement. The difference is that one can believe one knows something, but be ...

Where is the Left Wing Uprising in the USA? What you doing next Tuesday?

You've lost me. I don't see a hierarchy. Symmetry, maybe... ?p ? ~?~p ?p ? ~?~p ...and derivations thereof. Are you talking about the justification fo...

These are categories of modality, not of truth.

I didn't say that. I said

So what do you want?

But that seems to be the very thing you are claiming. Things that are necessarily true are not ever not true. Notice that "true" occurs on both sides ...

How do you know that you know? SO do you have a different scheme?

Of course not. Only because if something we thought we knew turned out to be false, we only thought we knew it.

You tell me. You seem to be working with probabilities. Not something I'm keen on.

You think this implies that a necessary is true in a way somehow different to a contingent truth? So set out what that difference would be. Take a loo...

Oooo I don't think so. Quite the reverse. There can be true things we don't know. but there can't be things we know that are not true.

That looks like degrees of knowledge, not of truth.

Interesting. Should we be advocating a return to levels of reality?

Then I think the same question I put to APo, goes to you"

So after this discussion, what would you change on this list?

I can make sense of a hierarchy of believe, or of justification. Not so much a hierarchy of truth. Isn't something either true or false?

Sounds like an affirmation of faith. I still don't see a difference between an absolute truth and a plain ordinary truth, except that you don't doubt ...

A necessary truth, then.

So you think something could not be absolutely true and yet unknown to us? We believe every absolute truth?

One can hold something to be true that is not true - that is, one can be wrong. It's probably better to keep "belief" for things we think are true, an...

Certainty, or truth? They are not the same. To be absolutely certain is presumably to be without doubt, sure. How does being absolutely true differ fr...

Truth usually ranges over proposition. Odd to have it range over actions. We usually speak of right or wrong, rathe than true of false, actions.

How does an absolute truth differ from a plain ordinary truth?

But necessary has a clear use, and a branch of logic to go with it. Absolute, at best is a philosophical anachronism. And most assuredly, they are not...

What is added to necessity by saying it is absolute? What does it mean to say a logical truth is objective?

The Book of Dead Philosophers.

Ok, sounds about right.

Sure, Bart.

All this does is show that you havn't understood the relation between a necessary truth and a contingent one. A truth is necessary only if it is not p...