Banno

You confuse truth and belief. Yep, I've pointed that out before. You do not have a theory of truth, you have a theory of belief. So, then, what is the...

So you have moved from to claiming laws are mere consensus... Indeed, your point does keep changing. So let's go back to your OP: IS this saying anyth...

But you do; that's the point. You use the rules of English, no problem. You play lip service to rationality. You use the physics of the internet witho...

There is very little evidence to support this. You say there are no rules, while selectively following them. You attack your critics, rather than answ...

So you will doubt without reason. And yet you are comfortable using the rules of English, as I pointed out before. So you doubt selectively.

The first lesson in physics is about errors. The students are given rulers and asked to measure the table in front of them as accurately as they can. ...

I agree with much of what you have to say, Wayfarer. I don't disagree with this. I would ask instead what a mind is, especially in this context. I sug...

I miss debates. What about a facility for debates?

I'm still here. And for the record, my request for a debate or thread on the pros and cons of your theory of truth remains; I am happy to join you in ...

And reality is what happens despite your beliefs and desires.

I have and image of Rich in court, objecting to his speeding fine:

I think I remember an interview with Canales a few months back. The unfolding of our experiences happens within time as set out by physicist. So I thi...

I like that.

You seem to have no trouble using the laws of English. SO it seems your rejection of laws (rules?) is selective.

I can go along with this; but discussions of phenomenology very quickly turn into effing the ineffable. At that point the discussion becomes mystical....

So that's a... Law?

So the logic of infinitesimals has nothing to do with infinitesimals. And this is not to be demonstrated, but instead you just attack your critic. Tha...

How does this issue keep recurring? A grasp of integral calculus is a very basic piece of mathematical literacy.

True; a good philosopher is able to understand a novel philosophical approach at a gut level, and yet still step away from it so that they can critici...

Because I am a bit sick of responding to you. Arguing with preachers is like that. I keep allowing myself to feed your obsession.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to look up transcendental argument on wikipedia.

as if Issues of ambiguity and error were only solved by Peirce.

well the basic logical issue in you argument is that it’s structure is that of a transcendental Argument; that there is only one solution, pragmatism....

deflection. Again.

the obsession with trinities is another odd thing about your scripture. hm

what might be interesting and important is what can’t be said. We can’t say something and it’s negation; we can’t deduce a universal from a number of ...

Deductive Logic is a bit like grammar. It gives a structure to what can be said. Mathematics does much the same. So the answer to Zeno’s paradoxes are...

Which is to say he could claim it was true if he changed the meaning of "true". OK, bottom line is I could not put my faith in any of the grand philos...

Think about that for a bit. Mathematics tells us nothing about the world?

Yes, indeed. "there are black swans" and "It is true that there are black swans" are truth functionally equivalent. You and I can say either. Apo is r...

Does anyone else find it odd that Apo can't actually say that his metaphysics is true? He acts as if it is true, and speaks as if it is true; but it b...

So far as I can see then, we agree that there is not actually a form of rational discourse that might reasonably be called induction... It is either i...

What a dreadful creature is Banno! Speaking things that cannot be spoken, such as "it is true that there are black swans"! He says that some statement...

And in doing so two things happen. The first is that it is no longer an inductive argument, but an deductive one. The second is that the premise used ...

yes; good, so we can move past naive falsification to holistic refutations of theories- groups of observations?

Read. Learn.

SO are we talking conjectures and refutations - falsification? That is, we see f(a), f(b), f(c)..., propose the conjecture that (x)f(x), and actively ...

So i’m Going to suggest that invariance is something of what Sam called a hinge proposition.

You can probably see where I am going. The move from evidence to invariance requires an induction, if it is going to be a conclusion.

Ok. So if there were issues with invarence, we could proceed along another path, and science would not be shot. So invariance is a conclusion reached ...

Sweet. Could we also proceed not by introducing invariance, but instead by introducing a measure of probability?

I'm somewhat nonplussed by the conversation here. Magnus clearly has a simplistic and ill informed understanding of logic, and you have pointed out ho...

good. You are slowly working it out.

Ah! Magnus might think that because both can be true, it is valid. but unfortunately these can also both be true: 1. Some Ps are Qs 2. Not all Ps are ...

Fair point. Odd, that you find yourself arguing my case against Magnus.

Ssssh. They don’t want to know.

all the theories you list above are less certain than that the sun will come up. Each case is over-baking the cake.

That the sun will rise tomorrow is something we can be sure of. Anything you add to that by way of philosophical or scientific theorising will not be ...

Are you certain of that?

That hows its applicability. Its validity is in the mathematics underpinning it, which is deductive.