Srap Tasmaner

I think it's valuable to explore the logic of risk and reward, owner and employer, and you've raised some interesting questions, but your analysis is ...

@"Metaphysician Undercover" @"Luke" At time A, my coffee is precariously perched on my car. At time B, after A, the coffee falls off the car. At time ...

Then you will have much to discuss.

Maybe you should discuss it with @"Metaphysician Undercover".

Say I'm worth x and you're worth 1000x. I wager x/10 and win earning say 5/4 my wager, so my wealth becomes 9x/8. You wager 10x and win, earning 50x/4...

I've never even met an economist. As I said before, part of the point here is that the absolute amount risked can be greater, while still being a far ...

Dunno. But it cannot be the case that starting a business is guaranteed by law to be risk-free, can it? But I really don't know. Maybe in some no-bloo...

This is just equating owners with shareholders. It's obviously not the case for small businesses, partnerships and such. I think you can grant the cla...

Gettier is hard. It seems clear there is no general way to block Gettier cases, because whatever you come up with will generate a revenge case purpose...

Also, I don't think anyone, including me, has given an adequate response to what I take to be @"Metaphysician Undercover"'s position, that alethic mod...

Indeed. That would be why I said "does not entail." This being coy, it's a violation of Grice's maxims — quantity I think, because you are sharing les...

Certainly it is not the case that ?P ? ~P. But it is also the case that "It might be in the car" implicates (but does not entail) "I don't know for su...

It's not that simple. For instance, I had a look at the SEP article about revision theory, and I was puzzled that we're treated to what amounts to a w...

I'm really not. If I candidly assert an indicative sentence, I imply that the content of my belief is represented by that sentence. It's simply false ...

Or an assertoric utterance of "The book is in Michael's room." At any rate, the content is where the action is. But you have no way of saying this as ...

I mean, there's the Church-Fitch argument; if there's no way around that, then there must be truths that cannot be known. Here's the problem, as I see...

You just have to be careful about this. Given (1) The book is possibly in my room. (2) I do not know where the book is. It is not the case that (1) en...

It's a conversational implicature, that's all. To say "It might be in my room" suggests that you don't know where it is. A good paraphrase is "The boo...

A lot of what we want to say using the alethic modalities clearly does have to do with time, and we do readily make these identifications, future = po...

This says {x: x is possible} is a subset of {x: x is not actual}. What's in the rest? What is neither possible nor actual? (Asking for a friend.)

Also Casablanca: Ugarte: You despise me, don't you Rick? Rick: Well if I gave you any thought I probably would.

So if I have a stack of boxes, and I'm going to mark one of them with an X, then it is true of each of the boxes that it may or may not be the one I'm...

Sorry — couldn’t resist the opportunity to sic you. It’s “factive”. “Fractive” sounds cool though. I wonder what it will turn out to mean. Maybe somet...

Possible that capitalism is not an economic system at all, but a type of (partial) government system. If you designed a government to establish public...

Jolly, then it’s “just semantics.” Fine. It’s not my usual usage, but if you want to reserve possible for non-actual, it makes no real difference. It ...

Btw, I believe I read somewhere that Ryle once described himself as an old-fashioned “Cook-Wilsonian.”

I should probably say something here. Williamson argues that there are several factive verbs (see, remember, regret, and so on) and that know is the m...

Meant to reply to this. The obvious explanation is that S knows that P entails that S is certain that P, in which case S is not certain that P entails...

Not *only* the same, because it's the one with the x on it, but it's still a box. You forgot to give an argument that putting an x on a box makes it n...

Yeah there you go.

Is every belief you hold present to mind all the time? No. Are all of your beliefs available to you on demand? I don't think so. There's plenty of rea...

Nevertheless. B knew where the book was, but that knowledge was unavailable to her for the moment. It seems clear that the belief was unavailable as w...

Yes. I am saying exactly that. Are you claiming she *discovered* that she herself put A's book on A's nightstand? That she *inferred* it from the evid...

Here’s an example, a sort of cartoon version of Hume: Hume argued directly that reasoning about matters of fact is merely probable. He didn’t argue th...

It doesn’t follow, but it was implicitly stipulated in my scenario. That was the point of having B suddenly remember that she moved the book; A sugges...

And even if it is used, on some occasion, with that intention, what does that tell you? I’ve already presented a case in which someone flatly denies h...

So if I have a stack of boxes and put an X on one of them with a Sharpie, it’s no longer a box. Cool. Nice job. Or maybe your argument is that if I ha...

Your argument is that if there’s something odd about saying “I know that p but I am not certain,” then (“perhaps”) knowledge requires certainty. Excep...

This has occurred to me. It might be simpler to call a spade a spade here. An assumption H for the purposes of hypothetical reasoning picks out a set ...

I’ve written and deleted screens of analysis of your problematic sentence. I doubt you (or anyone else) are all that interested. Let me ask you this: ...

No, sorry. I’m reading his book, Knowledge and Its Limits. There’s a whole lot I don’t know yet, but my understanding is that a number of problems in ...

The claim is that knowledge is a first-class mental state, distinct from belief, not a particular variety of belief. If S knows that p, that also enta...

I really don’t think so, but I wouldn’t base that entirely on what people say, their reports. We can say of the shy schoolboy or the forgetful grandfa...

Proof is in the pudding. There are lots of linguists doing lots of fieldwork. Maybe they'll find something, maybe they won't. Arguments that they must...

Which is a perfectly good prior. What do you do next? That would be one thing to do next. If the theory has entailments that are false, it's toast. Bu...

Dang. Should also have said that the rest of the mapping is that logic’s or is + (but you have to not double count where they overlap) and and is *, a...

Should have said, the interesting stuff is with conditional probabilities, but it can be harder to wrap your head around at first.

We can do some stuff with validity in a way. It’s far more common, I think, to claim straight up that P ? Q, but give a probability for P. Then you ca...

To me, certainty sounds like a psychological state, something like “maximal confidence,” and it’s irrelevant. It could turn out I was wrong even if I ...

I for one would appreciate it if you stopped saying things like this. Andrew and Michael are clearly not trying to deceive you. If they are mistaken, ...