Banno

No, the proper name "metre" is the rigid designator. It refers to a specific length in every possible world.

Napoleon: "See this here stick? From now on, we call the length of this stick, right here and now, 'one metre'. Got that? And it works in all possible...

:grin: Thanks for taking my grumpiness with good humour.

Ah, of course, @"Wallows" is an updated version of ModBot. An algorithm that asks questions derived from our posts, occasionally throwing in something...

It's simple, really, but folk over-think it, or confuse it with definite descriptions. So the man who was first on the moon was Armstrong. But someone...

In all honesty, i don't understand how you could possibly ask that after the first few pages of this thread, let lone the next fifty. It's as if you h...

Well, they do outside of this thread.

But it isn't. The length of the stick might have be other than it was. Did you mean "The length of the meter is rigid in all possible worlds"? That wo...

Very droll.

A side issue... but I have been a member for much longer than that. There have been a half-dozen or so posters who understood philosophy. Two or three...

Seems to me that @"tim wood" gave us a neat example of how the confusion originates in not taking language seriously. I'm leaning more to Davidson tha...

We can't dispute the las of nature? Shoot the physicist then, we don't need them anymore.

The metre stick is not rigid. It might be different lengths in other possible situations. But the metre is rigidly designated by "one metre" And acces...

"Metre" is a rigid designator for a certain length.

This is very unclear. Are you suggesting that we should not think that the things we believe, are true? That would mean believing things we believe ar...

God alone knows that we are having this conversation? Or any of the myriad related things that are also true? I don't think so. Nor do you, judging by...

that’s not twosorts of truth. That’s truth and belief.

It's belief that is provisional, not truth.

Not at all. If you find yourself inclined to accept a contradiction, you're saying it wrong. Take another look.

We ought also consider the converse: as well as asking when it is reasonable to believe, we ought ask when it is reasonable to doubt.

So the answer to this is that it is using "truth" to ask about belief; and hence it is asking what other reasons we might have for accepting one belie...

Are you asking about truth or belief? Seems to me you have asked about why we might believe this or that, but using the word "truth". That is, "obtain...

No. Asking for a criteria for right and wrong is asking for reasons to believe. Belief is not truth. Words. Keep 'em clean.

Yeah. @"Andrew" is a bit careless with his quote marks.

So let's get long with plain ordinary truth. Like that this is a sentence of English, in a philosophy forum, responding to your post. Doubting that wo...

Best not to try to define truth. Something has to remain fundamental. I suspect you know how to use "true" correctly - leave it at that. Any further t...

Well, no. Truth doesn't care if you believe it or not. Being certain is a state of mind, not a state of affairs.

I basically agree. The main change I would make is to clearly differentiate truth from belief. it's not what is true that changes over time, but what ...

Cheers. It's more complex than that. One's own phenomenal state ought be checked against the phenomenal states of others; do they see what I see? And ...

But observation is not the whole of the myth of scientific method. Science is a social activity.

That's epistemology. The supposition in the OP is that the only way to truth is by the scientific method. There's lots going on here. Truth and belief...

I don't need a method to know I have a headache.

The thing is, in the end a decision must be made. "None of the above" shirks that responsibility.

Have a read of https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#Con

But we don't. What could count as evidence that I have a headache? "I took some paracetamol, and put a cold towel on the back of my neck, so I hypothe...

Yours is a neat account of the mythical method scientists tell each other that they use. Please don't read that as being disparaging; it's the sort of...

N&N pp142-3

That's not circular.

The metre stick is used to set a specific length, designated rigidly by the name "Metre". A metre is hence the same length in all possible worlds. In ...

Davidson, Quine. Austin. Wittgenstein - there is a way of following a rule that is shown by doing, not by saying.

Which scientific method? Falsification? Coherence? Survival of the fittest paradigm? Research Programs? Anything Goes? It's not exactly clear what the...

Good to see Quine get a mention.

Of course they could. Humpy Dumpty beckons. But what about you, Moli? What would you say?

In PWS, propositional and predicate logic hold in each world. It doesn't because it is wrong. Gold is gold in every possible word in which it exists. ...

Posit any world you like. This might have been where @"frank" was thinking with his talk of imagination. Whatever you want. Is it possible? PWS gives ...

Banno is indeed Banno in every possible world in which I exist. In no world am I a doughnut, a fruit cake or anything other than human. Although in so...

So on your account, some things can be a posteriori and yet necessary - agreeing with Kripke. Gold having an atomic number of 79 being one of these. A...

Nah. Watched the Demonstration at the WA mint. They melt a gold bar and then set it. It's not yellow. It's - gold.

Anyway, that's all beside the point. I think @"schopenhauer1" has a pretty good response. Along with @"frank"'s suggestion.

But then the gold ingots I have seen weren't much different.