Banno

Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics?

An excellent post. I will get to it.

Good for you. Just so long as you do not conclude , as you did, that a statement's being true requires it's being believed.

...you are confusing belief as a whole with belief in any particular.

This conversation just puts me in mind of Marx - Theses on Feuerbach. Go ahead an philosophise. I won't stop you.

Yeah there's a book.

No it isn't.

Oh, Harry. Go for clear thinking. Clear thinking is good. But clear thinking is not only found in Philosophy. Indeed, clear thinking is rarely found i...

What? How does the second sentence follow? A statement's being true requires exactly that it be true, no more and no less. For the remainder, you are ...

If that leads you to oddities, don't do it. After all, it amounts to granting relativism. I'm not at all sure what you are doing in that post.

Better to ask what is right. Pangolin scales? What's that about. https://149366112.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pangolin4-460x2841.j...

Climate change, together with the Anthropocene extinction, is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large. The solution is simply the rejection of greed. Bu...

You never gonna get anywhere if you gonna read stuff and put it in context. The way ahead here is just to make stuff up based on the title.

What about adopting the view that what counts as a simple depends on what one is doing? That something can be simple in one way, complex in others? PI...

:up:

That's pretty much the reason Davidson works with statements rather than either propositions or facts. There are statements that are not believed and ...

Sure.

It’s I hope easy to see that if two folk disagree as to their beliefs, one of them is perhaps wrong. But there are those who argue conceptual relativi...

so... that was it? That was a question for me, not molie?

Perhaps a link? If you can't be bothered, then don't complain.

Passive aggressive. You say i didn't respond, but refuse to tell me what it was I didn't respond to. Well done, you. You win.

Seriously? So, set out your objection for me; and I will answer it, again.

So if you do not wish to engage in this discussion, don't. There was a very fine thread elsewhere - must have been the old forum. The conclusion is th...

...and all that means is "...is true". Which is exactly what the T-sentence says.

Sure; so the onus is on @Janus to show how he voids it. I've give one way.

When one unpacks what one means by actuality, all one gets is "...is true".

And you have not explained anything about what the fact or the actuality or whatever is. Further, if you read the T sentence as you end up with one fa...

One disarms the slingshot by removing correspondence.

Yep. This is a variant.

I'm drawing out the consequence of your claim that T-sentences say something about facts, by trying to get you to explain what a fact is. You said it ...

Yep. It's a rendering of an argument found in True to the Facts, and elsewhere, that shows that if you treat true statements as referring to facts, yo...

How did that help? I'm told that "snow is white" is true iff it corresponds to the actuality; and further, that "snow is white" is true iff snow is wh...

@"Isaac", it seems to me that your approach commits you to a form of antirealism. The realist view would be that there are things that are true yet no...

I'm very confused. What's an actuality?

Which one? There are two of them in the T-sentence. If you say the first, then you've mistaken the name for the thing. If you say the second, you are ...

What is it in the T-sentence that you think corresponds, and what does it correspond to?

My criticism remains the same. When we say that some statement is true, we do not mean the same thing as when we say that it is believed. The view you...

The teaching would be to set up situations that challenge Jenny's existing behaviour, situations in which it is beneficial for her to acknowledge that...

Well I am. I'm pissed at you for levelling personal insults at me. It demeans the discussion.

It's the word "underlying" that I object to; it suggests some sort of fundament were there is none.

Another good post. Kuhn, as I understand him, would deny the commonplace that Newtonian physics is a subset of relativistic physics, accurate only wit...

So conceptual schemes are for you psychological as against linguistic, and hence you take it that translation is irrelevant. Well, that strikes me as ...

And do you claim the same fro truth? Is it subject to degree?

Hmm. I think you are going out on a limb here. See for instance the Stanford article on Kuhn, which treats translation at length. I'll grant that Kuhn...

Thanks for the clarification. This seems to still fall to my counterexample, that there can be truths that are not believed.

He misapplied it, rather than misunderstood it. He took a derivation of truth in terms of meaning and flipped it into a derivation of meaning in terms...

Perhaps putting the negation inside the scope of the belief relieves you of saying nothing. I'm not convinced.

it’s always easier to dismiss an argument if you begin by misconstruing it.

but I did point out that type adding a tautology did nothing. Why the anger?

Me, too.