Michael

What they ought to have taken is what the search warrant told them to take. The search warrant told them to take "any containers/boxes (including any ...

Jesus, do you really think such poor reasoning is going to work on me? You're embarrassing yourself.

Is your reading comprehension that bad? "any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located" This means that if a...

They take what the search warrant tells them to take, which included "any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are ...

The search warrant says: So it seems reasonable to assume that Trump's passports were mixed in with documents marked as classified. And that after all...

I don't see how that's irony?

@"Banno" Incidentally your reasoning entails that everyone lies when they admit that they might be wrong. If they’re not wrong then they can’t be wron...

1. I believe that aliens exist but I don't know that aliens exist. 2. I claim that I might actually be wrong. 3. My claim that I might actually be wro...

Exactly what I said above. I have a true belief and yet "I might actually be wrong" is true.

If my belief is true in reality, it isn't false, and so I am not wrong. You're making the same mistake as others. "it isn't" doesn't mean the same thi...

I have a true belief and yet "I might actually be wrong" is true.

I'm not talking about knowledge at this point. I explicitly said that I don't know that aliens exist: I believe that aliens exist but I don't know tha...

What's the problem? I can't explain that any simpler than I already did.

I believe that aliens exist but I don't know that aliens exist. I claim that I might actually be wrong. My claim that I might actually be wrong is tru...

If it's true of a true belief then, if we're fallibilists, it's also true of knowledge.

My claim that I might actually be wrong is true even if I'm not wrong. If it's true of a true belief then, if we're fallibilists, it's also true of kn...

See here. So I am entertaining possible worlds. I'm simply explaining that this is the incorrect translation of our claims.

You're not addressing what I'm saying.

When I say that I believe that you are Australian but that it's possible that I'm wrong I'm not just saying that there is some possible world where yo...

If "aliens exists" is true then "aliens exist" is not false. "is not" does not mean "is not possibly". ¬p does not mean ¬?p. Again, see the valid moda...

No, it's just saying something like "aliens exist" is not necessarily true and not necessarily false, therefore it's possibly true and possibly false.

You're introducing temporal logic. Temporal logic isn't modal logic.

I think you should read up on modal logic. Here is how possibility and necessity are actually defined: ?p ? ¬?¬p ?p ? ¬?¬p

I did. That it is necessary that p is true is that it is not possible that p is false.

Necessity and possibility are defined by each other: ?p (necessarily p) is equivalent to ¬?¬p ("not possible that not-p") ?p (possibly p) is equivalen...

It's not a contradiction. p ? ?p ¬?p ? p ? ?¬p p being true does not entail that p is necessarily true p is not necessarily true Therefore, if p is tr...

So you reject fallibilism and claim that knowledge requires certainty?

Remember also that "I am possibly wrong" can also imply "I am possibly right".

I'm not even talking about knowledge at this point. I'm just talking about claims like "I believe that you are American but it's possible that I'm wro...

You don't seem to understand what "possibly" means. Because of the law of excluded middle, this is true: 1. ?p ? (¬p ? p) It's possible that I'm wrong...

Because you say that ?p ? ¬p can never be true. If you say that ?p ? ¬p can never be true then you say that ?p ? p is always true. If ?p ? p is always...

Then you agree with this: 1. ?p ? p 2. If it is possible that I am wrong then I am wrong

These are two different claims: 1. ?(¬p ? p) 2. ¬p ? ?p Translated: 3. It it is possible that I am both not wrong and wrong 4. I am not wrong and it i...

You conflate "it is possible that I am wrong" and "I am wrong". These two mean different things: 1. ?p (it is possible that I am wrong) 2. p (I am wro...

Consider the conclusion. ?p ? p If it is possible that I am wrong then I am wrong Do you believe that this is false?

Because premises of that form are almost always false. You cannot go from "not p" to "not possibly p". The only time the premise is true is when p is ...

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/108828041518355960 They took his passports?

I understand "I can be wrong" as "it is possible that I am wrong". So: p ? I am wrong ¬p ? ¬?p ? ?p ? p If I am not wrong then it is not possible that...

p ? I am wrong q ? I can be wrong ¬p ? ¬q ? q ? p If I'm not wrong then I can't be wrong Therefore, if I can be wrong then I am wrong I think the conc...

When I say "I believe that you are American but I could be wrong" I'm not saying "I believe that you are American but I am wrong" and I'm not just say...

Salman Rushdie: Iran blames writer and supporters for stabbing So they say the attack is justified.

It's better understood with belief. 1. I believe that you are a mathematician, but I could be wrong. Even if my belief is true it is still the case th...

Some of the things I believe but don't know are true as well. When I say "I believe p but I could be wrong" I'm not saying "I believe p but I am wrong...

I think the mistake is in conflating modal logic with possible world semantics. You can have the former without the latter. I'm just using modal logic...

The literal translation of 4 is "I believe that this thing is true and it is possible that this thing is not true" which is just what I understand "I ...

I regret using that term now. Too many can't seem to get past it. That's why I offered this as an alternative.

That's why I said "I'm not just saying that." The point is that when I say "I believe p but I could be wrong" I'm not saying "I believe p and in the a...

Yes, that's what I said here: Omniscience aside, if we're fallibilists then we could be wrong even if we have knowledge.

I'm not just saying that. I'm saying that she might not be 30 in the actual world. When we admit to the possibility of being wrong we're not saying "I...

I don’t think that’s right because when I say “I believe she’s 30 years old but I might be wrong” I’m not saying that in some alternate world she migh...