Banno

Competent speakers of English all, we know what truth is. The hard part is knowing what is true.

Beer, no so much. Shiraz, thanks.

Seeking definitions. Bad idea. Gets you in to no end of trouble.

Is that the measure of worth? Ever noticed the eight-by-eight broken symmetry of a chess board? Is that also mysterious and profound?

And there's your problem.

Meh. The dark emu is profound and symbolic. Is that what is required?

Good point. Change is also analytic to space; for much the same reasons. Perhaps change is the marker for dimension. Or is it position that changes?

truth is a semantic notion - not just syntax; so it comes into the story along with the content.

Given that the discussion is about the circularity of defining truth in terms of validity... not much.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9BA-MRVoAAggLU.jpg

I like simple. Down here the greatest start sign is the Dark Emu. http://images.theage.com.au/2014/01/06/5055598/130114_01_First-620x349.jpg

I'm just assuming this was ironic.

What makes it valid? I say it's that regardless of the interpretation you apply, it turns out true - ones all the way down the truth table. What's you...

Yes. Is that a good thing?

Yeah, I think he did. Though its a long time since I read SSR, I do recall talk of incommensurability between paradigms. In contrast, Feyerabend expli...

Maybe not.

Then what is their worth?

But knowledge is justified... How can astrology be justified? Beyond Jungian handwaving.

@"creativesoul" I don't think there is anything in this thread.

I just like the good old "it's valid if it is true under all interpretations" thing. You guys are far to clever for me.

Tell me more.

No, the argument was that there are twelve constellations in the zodiac, and twelve notes, therefore Astrology is mysterious.

Trouble is, validity is defined in terms of truth. Circularity ensues.

Existence isn't generally considered a property - at least not a first-order one, which is what your scheme relies on. You seem to be close to definin...

Your horoscope for today:

Quite possible, but likely?

I'm just making a list of people worth ignoring.

Perhaps; I haven't worked on it for years. But it's Wiki, so fix it.

SO it's down to argument ad insultum?

Bullshit is saying what suits you, despite the truth.

But how? Because folk think it pretty?

It's magic because both music and the zodiac have twelve things in them.

Quite so. Quite obscene.

reflecting on your brilliance.

Exactly; you can believe what you like but that does not make it true.

Hm. xii.

What did he say about that in Philosophical Investigations?

It's a bad habit. Trolls eat everything you throw at them; how long until they explode?

It does? What's that mean?

Meant to come back to this. In some of my earlier posts, while trying to work out what was being claimed I misspoke. Facts, i've been convinced, are n...

"Are you talking to me?" 8-) or then again I might just open another wine. Oh dear. Read him as a student. Too long ago. Critical pedagogy had some in...

This argument can be expanded upon, based on what's available to a human in regards to understanding Nature. But my post is not about looking at natur...

Yeah, that'll never work. Thanks.

If you like; I don't see any reason for this not to be extendable, indefinitely. Or if as I prefer, for "constellations, or domains" to never be incom...

@"Henri" Only after I came to an understanding that God does not exists, I started to look into theistic arguments more closely. And my conclusion is ...

Do I? Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I am still stuck with the conclusion that the Great Theories of Truth - Correspondence, Coherence, Pragmatism -...

They are not my understandings. I am reflecting back to you the God you describe. You have eyes, but fail to see.

Ah, good. Make the thread about me. What fun! What I have done is draw out the logical of your OP, to see what sort of a god it implies. But it seems ...

And my unaddressed reply - that your God is a sneak, a Loki, a Satan.

...without ever setting out that thought process. You are the one firing blanks.