Banno

You think? Seems to me that if someone were to come along and claim that the keys were not locked in the car, when they clearly are, that they have ei...

Sure. Talking in terms of facts is something that philosophers do, not mechanics. But are we going to say that there are no facts? What I am suggestin...

That the keys are in the car can be represented in English, French, Arabic... or sign language, if you like. But that the keys are in the car will be ...

That might sound as if I am being tricksy. What I am wondering is, if you believe that the keys are in car, then don;t you also believe that it is tru...

Agreed. Beliefs are best kept in a state of flux. Well, most of them, anyway. Do we conclude that there are no such things as facts?

While we ought keep modality in mind, it is a small thing at this stage of the discussion. There's indexicals and quantification to deal with, too.

Sounds eminently sensible. So would you continue by working from the supposition that the keys are locked in the car, perhaps seeking another way to u...

But suppose you examine the situation and make the personal judgement that the keys are indeed locked in the car?

What we have here is a failure to engage. If you lock your keys in the car, don't ask for my help.

All I did was look at one side of the conjunction. Here's the other side: It would be simple to add a time - "the keys are locked in the car now". I'm...

I'd like to try to understand what you are claiming here. Do you mean that there may be a language, other than English, in which the keys are not lock...

<===Click here. It's how threads work.

Click on your name.

The post to which I replied was the one linked in the reply.

See if we agree on this. There are some facts that cannot be represented away. If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regar...

Seems you are agreeing with me.

And?

"Atomic facts" as such were specifically rejected in Wittgenstein II.

How a fact is presented is dependent on the social context; that does not mean that all facts are dependent on a social context.

History dulls the context. The world does not consist of individuals - cats , mats, and so on; but of cats on mats. Facts, unlike individuals, have pr...

Yep; I would add that the community of logicians and other thinkers think it so because it provides a useful, interesting topic.

From what I said above, one can see that even a contradiction can provide us with a system of logic. But not a useful system of logic.

The best way to think about logic is as a set of grammatical structures. It elucidates what we can asert if we adopt specific rules. So let's look at ...

troll quality is on the way down. Time was they at least could hold one side of a discussion.

So what you did here was to misunderstand a cartoon, then make an invalid inference, and add an ad hom attack. Rationality not thought of biggly where...

:-| Your reply was garbled nonsense. A nothing reply was only appropriate.

You're serious? Sounds like your head is a bit too full.

:-| A neat example pf pro-Trump logic.

You think that cartoon is about the election? No. It's about what happened at the G19.

No it isn't.

Exhibit two: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/explanation?s=t

Here's some evidence: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Explanation&rawformassumption=%7B%22C%22,+%22Explanation%22%7D+-%3E+%7B%22Word%22%7D

Yep, it is. The Doctor gave me a sensible prescription, hence I conclude that she can be trusted. Can I explain why I trust the doctor? She gave me th...

http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/putintoon06.jpg

Here's the text.

Of course it is circular. But that does not make it useless. It's coherentism; and it is a serious epistemic theory. As I said at the outset: I explic...

https://www.facebook.com/abcnews.au/videos/10156942348159988/

Sh...

(Y)

That bit is no more than an expression of your own aesthetic. But let's leave that as moot. More central is the issue of what an explanation consists ...

Indeed; they could be completely explained by a cycle.

Nothing in this sequence is unexplained.

The point remains that circular reasoning is valid. It is rejected usually for aesthetic purposes. Again, suppose each and every item in a cycle of ex...

Debatable.

Excellent metaphor.

Hello, Mollie. While I am enjoying playing around with the ideas here, my response is that the notion that brute facts are those that need no explanat...

China Sees Opening Left by Trump in Europe, and Quietly Steps In Trump: Making America irrelevant.

And again, each and every fact in a cycle of explanation can be explained, including those that form the explanations for other facts.

Why? If A explains B, it does not follow that B explains A. Which brings us back to the question of the nature of explanation - What is the relation b...

Circular implication is perfectly valid. Ask yourself: Which thing in the ring of explanation is not explained?