Philosophim

This is another major problem. By the way, my paper has an answer to the problem of induction. Its the last section. Induction cannot be used to ascer...

I've mentioned this before, and its important that you understand this. If using Kant's definitions, the Gettier problem does not apply to analytic kn...

Agreed! I looked for years and was highly dissatisfied with them all until this one. Here's the link again: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/...

Oh, my point was not that you do or do not understand the theory. You may very well have full mastery of it. I don't pretend to. I'm just noting that ...

If you really want to understand Bell's theorem, you should visit a science forum Tim Wood. The terminology like "spin" is often misconstrued as an En...

First, I want to praise this with every fiber of my being. I hope that my challenges to your writing have not come across as antagonistic. I am not tr...

Hello PL Olcott, my apologies but the last few days have been busy. I can continue our conversation now. First, I do not disagree with your overall vi...

Great analysis.

I think we're missing a lot of context here. Taken at face value, this is objectively stupid. What's the point? I'll just ask him back, "But wait. You...

Buddhism is just another philosophy. If its invalidated by the points I make, then it is. Buddhism affords no special treatment, and must answer the p...

Is it really an unquestionable system? Not at all. What is the model of a "tree". I envision a tree, and you envision a tree. Are they likely the same...

This is just a repetition of a previous statement, and doesn't solve the issue. You're not explaining to me how we resolve the fact that properties as...

Lets take another example. You live in a place where all apples are red. Everyone calls them apples, everyone knows that they are red. Ask a person wh...

I'm noting that swans by definition were known as white at the time. The house by definition is not white, it has the attribute of white. The swan by ...

Then you agree with me. The truth is that the sun does not revolve around the Earth, it is that the Earth revolves around the sun. You allow frame of ...

It does not. Prove that it requires it. To prove that it requires it, you must demonstrate that one can have synthetic knowledge of it, and also prove...

Lets say, even though you have no proof, that most people think that truth is a requirement for knowledge. Philosophy is not a contest of opinions. Ca...

I never said synthetic knowledge was impossible. I simply noted that truth cannot be a necessary requirement for synthetic knowledge. Gettier cases ar...

My apologies, but I have places to go this evening. I'll carry on our conversation tomorrow.

Close. Its more to the fact that there is no answer to the question, "How do we know if what we know is true?" Its impossible in regards to the synthe...

Please re-read my previous comments. That's been the entire point of the conversation.

Which again leaves us with, "How do we know that we're correctly matching the correct elements in the model of the actual (true) world?" Its the same ...

You posted this up above. To be a sound deductive argument, the premises need to be true. This is getting into silly territory now. Do not be afraid t...

You haven't proven your premises as true, therefore you're argument is not deductive. No, its only false if truth is a necessary pre-requisite for kno...

This doesn't make any sense. Either the premises are true or false. You have not proved this anywhere. In fact, this statement is a contradiction. Whe...

No, that's not progress at all. You haven't shown that there is no synthetic knowledge, you've simply set the definition of knowledge as something imp...

Yes, analytic knowledge is true by definition. Few debate that. We're talking about synthetic, which is the entire target of the Gettier argument. Whi...

Then we know nothing. That's why your fix to the Gettier problem fails. Knowledge is obviously something we use. It differentiates itself from mere be...

And again, the same question. How do we know we have the correct mapping, or know that what we know is true? Sure, if it was as simple as that the arg...

Then according to your JTB, no one can ever know anything synthetically. Meaning I can't know if I'm really in my house or if I'm a brain in a vat. Th...

Then how would we prove its a cat? How would we prove that its true that its a space monster, especially if its a perfectly disguised cat? Because it ...

You ignored the key question about truth. How do you know its true? How do you know you have complete proof?

The reason you've pondered it for years is that there is no answer. Logically, the only conclusion is its impossible. Therefore the only conclusion is...

I'm putting forth some effort here, please do more than a few sentences if you're serious about engaging. Think about it. If truth is the necessary in...

Somehow the replies got out of order. My point above is in regards to As for the the cats DNA, you're missing the point of the thought experiment. The...

And how do we know its true? I have a creature that's a space monster, and its absolutely beyond any human to find out its a space monster. We know it...

To clarify, it is not that it is necessarily a cat. It is that you can logically conclude no other identity at the time of your identification. One co...

I would say logic is the organization of thoughts and identities at an attempt to arrive at conclusions that are concurrent with reality. This is done...

I solved the Gettier problem, as well as most classical epistemological problems such as the problem of induction here. https://thephilosophyforum.com...

The fact that you are looking at something is truth. That exists despite what you believe.

Certainty is not a standard for knowledge. This is because you can doubt anything. Being able to doubt something lends no credence to whether a doubt ...

Truth is reality. Reality is what exists regardless of what we believe. When we have beliefs that are not contradicted by reality, we seem concurrent ...

Finally someone else gets it. Its sometimes frustrating that people get stuck in the idea that being conscious matter is somehow despairing. What's th...

You are correct on all accounts. I'm fairly certain I understand what you mean by quantitative, but I'm trying to see what's qualitative. I didn't wan...

When you have two people tell you the structure of your paper has problems, its not their problem, its your problem. Your OP's intro is poorly written...

With philosophy your argument starts with the very first premise you put forth. Your entire thesis statement starts with this assumption. The only thi...

I'm going to second T Clark here. This is twisting the idea of rationality into something its not. People are often not inclined to be rational at all...

Reading your work is always a delight! Unique thinkers are what we need and I enjoy mulling over your work. With your initial definitions, I'm going t...

100% agree.

Hello Bob! As you are using specific vocabulary, it would help to make your point clearer by also defining exactly what each piece of the vocabulary m...