Srap Tasmaner

We do get to choose though, and some choices may be better grounded than others in particular circumstances. Where you say '(taken as a psychological ...

Obviously I agree with everything in your post, and have said as much, but I've avoided leaning on this particular point because, while it's true that...

A bit of philosophy that has passed into general usage is, given a fictional world such as a novel or a movie or a video game, to distinguish between ...

Actually, I'll make one little point on my way out. I think the Problem of the Criterion is slightly more interesting than the Church-Fitch paradox or...

Poor choice of words on my part. Just bowing out of the discussion.

This is all very helpful. (At the moment, I'm really just trying to figure out how we can stop talking past each other.) We're still having serious te...

This is clearly what LW was up to -- without even going back to the Investigations, you could guess that what's going to interest him here is the gram...

Just to connect some dots here -- what you called the belief's 'content' above, that's the inference about the state of the world. (And 'inference' yo...

Well good luck to you.

(1) 'Dewey defeated Truman' is true iff insert theory of truth ] (2) Alice knows that Dewey defeated Truman iff insert theory of knowledge ] (2a) Alic...

No.

So what do you mean here: Are you talking about what makes a proposition true, or about how we know that it is true?

Suppose you study a messy but widely used concept like "fascism," and your research results in a formula, something like 'all fascist regimes have at ...

The photograph thing is clever. I had matter-of-factly observed that we can't deduce p from someone's asserting p -- never occurred to me to imagine d...

This looks like a theory of truth, not a theory of how we know what is true.

Absolutely everyone agrees to all of this.

Then you agree the Moore sentence is not a contradiction. So what's wrong with it? Why is it something no one would ever say?

In the interests of comity, I'm going to speak here with a looseness I'm immediately disavowing. I believe the sticking point is this: meaning, referr...

Yes, well, I drive a car by sitting like so, and moving my arms and legs thus. But moving my arms and legs thus is not driving a car.

I'm just not following this. Do we make inferences and form beliefs about the world and its state, even though we don't have access to it?

If you want to tell a causal story about why we say what we do, you should probably also have a story that gets you from facts to meanings, or you nev...

Maths Tutor: "Williams! What is three times seven?" Williams: "Sir! I believe three times seven is twenty-one, sir." Tutor: "Don't be irrelevant, Will...

(( I couldn't find it online either. Curious bit of history in the SEP article that Church seemed to have recently seen Moore's thing when he anonymou...

@"Isaac" thinks it overthrows the correspondence theory of truth with a single blow. That's a bit more vehement than anything I've posted.

Fair enough. The thing is, Moore sentences screw with what, to a budding philosopher, might seem like natural answers to the general question, "Why do...

Of course nobody would say it. The question is, why not? The Moore sentence is clearly pathological. But how do you know that? What rule, principle or...

This is just not the tree I was barking up, but that's on me, I could have been clearer. If I put together a jigsaw puzzle by selecting a piece at ran...

Is there research that establishes this? I think I can almost imagine experiment designs that might get near questions like this -- or at least showin...

@"Baden" is right to praise a praiseworthy act. Sorting people into {the good ones} and {the bad ones} is childish at best.

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/10/the-cinemax-theory-of-racism/

There's no particular use here for P1. Just use P2-P4 to derive C1. The general form here is sometimes referred to as "argument by cases".

Better still do this: 1. x & y (premise) 2. ~y (premise) 3. y (from 1) contradiction.

Yes it is a fallacy. Once you know either of the conjuncts is false, you know the conjunction is false without ever looking at the other conjunct or k...

No. C2 and P2 are inconsistent, but R could still be true for all that. C3 doesn't follow.

Indeed. Good luck with your work.

Then you'll want to say something like this: By 'speak' I don't mean ], by 'proposition' I don't mean ], by 'true' I don't mean ], and by 'assert' I d...

We often take a common practice and formalize it, more or less abstractly. Often there are options for how to carry out such a formalization, and it's...

But I don't think you can build this fortress yourself. There's an episode of "Barney Miller," an old sitcom, in which an old man is about to be taken...

Not sure what you mean here. Are you thinking of versions where these are taken to be self-referential? (You'd have to say, because to my ear these bo...

I suppose I'll have to have another look at the McDonnell & Abbott paper, because I think that's kind of what I'm talking about. To put it relatively ...

Right, that was the idea. Whether it might be possible to make a better second (or later) choice without knowing how good the previous choice (or choi...

I keep thinking about how the two rounds of the game compare. The general problem would be something like this: can you improve your performance even ...

I only meant that terms like "performative utterance" and "illocutionary force" originated in a philosophical tradition I know a bit about (Austin, St...

Not my area then, and any comment I could make would be uncharitable. If you haven't read Austin yet, I'd recommend doing so.

Clarifying a little. Suppose X=5. This is the sort of thing you don't know, but choice being what it is, you can still be confident that P(Y=X | X=?) ...

I still look at the problem this way: First you're presented with two sealed envelopes; you can't tell which is bigger. You open one and observe its v...

What whole theory is that?

I know you didn't mean it this way, but isn't that true of all sentences? (I have no idea what Lazzaroto is talking about.)

Of course. Someone about to buy such an envelope on the street ought to hope a friendly and helpful philosopher would be walking by to point out that ...

Specific commitments can be negated by the speaker, at least in many cases. (Moore's paradox an apparent exception.) But some commitment? I doubt you ...