Michael

No, it doesn't.

Maybe you should try reading Fitch's paradox.

No.

It's not. You might as well claim that mathematicians are wrong to define the "=" sign as meaning "is equal to".

But that argument isn't valid. That is not what "sound" means.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. It's not the case that the word "valid" means something and then we try to give a proper description...

I don't know what you're talking about.

This recent argument started as a discussion on Fitch's paradox, which examines the anti-realist's knowability principle: ?p(p ? ?Kp). Realists reject...

I am a man and I am not a man. Therefore I am rich. The argument is valid; the conclusion follows from the premise. We can show this in four parts: 1....

But I don't think you're quite acknowledging the nuances of realism in that post. See here where I offer an example involving cats in boxes. For your ...

I agree with your substitution. So what's the problem?

"to an adequate degree"?

This proposition is true: 1. We do not have evidence that we are brains in a vat If realism is correct then this proposition is true: 2. It is possibl...

But your reasoning is not directed at what I was claiming. You said "you are trying to claim that it follows from your premises that there are truths ...

I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing, or what you mean by the possibility of skepticism. The skeptic doesn't say "we are brains in a vat"; the skep...

I'm not. I'm trying to explain this: I try to prove an even stronger version of this using propositional logic here.

These mean different things: 1. We are brains in a vat 2. It is possible that we are brains in a vat In propositional logic: 1. P 2. ?P If realism is ...

Well, yes. That’s how Dummett defined the distinction between realism and antirealism; realists commit to the classical logic of bivalence and antirea...

Well, no. The antirealist argues that if "the cat is in the box" is true then it's possible for someone to know that it's true, e.g. by looking in the...

Some musings. Let's take the knowability principle from Fitch's paradox: ?p(p ? ?Kp). According to this, "a marker of necessity functions as a univers...

The first thing is that it isn't any of your strawmen. Antirealism doesn't claim, and nor do antirealists acknowledge that it entails, that all truths...

I’m sorry but this is quite the ironic thing to say given the rest of your response to my post. Pot, meet kettle. And I don’t think I’ve ignored anyth...

I think a better example is: “Banno has stopped beating his wife”. Assuming, I hope, that you have never beaten your wife.

How do you get from “there are unknown mathematical truths” to “Goldbach's conjecture so far has no truth value”? And who has denied that that there i...

I’m confused. Are you a truth deflationist or not? A truth deflationist will accept that (1) and (2) mean the same thing. But now you say that they do...

The claim isn’t that all truths are known. The claim is that all truths are knowable. Remember, anti-realists reject Fitch’s conclusion. The claim isn...

So we have this: Sentences (1) and (2) mean the same thing. Dummett then argues that (2) is only meaningful if it is verifiable. This is his Language ...

One of us is clearly misunderstanding the other. I’ll try to rephrase what I was saying more clearly: 1. “It is raining” is true 2. It is raining 3. “...

I’m not sure what you mean. The conjecture “alien life exists on Pluto” can be proven true or false by going to Pluto, looking everywhere for life, an...

Take these two sentences: 1. “It is raining” is true 2. “It is not raining” is true According to your reasoning, (1) means that it is raining and (2) ...

And it’s important to remember that, at least if we accept the premises of Fitch’s paradox, we’re dealing with modal possibility, i.e that if it is no...

That’s not exactly what they’re saying. They’re saying that: 1. If “God exists” is true then it is possible to prove that it is true 2. If “God exists...

It's not obvious to the anti-realist. If your only "argument" against anti-realism is that it's "obviously" wrong then it's not an argument, just a de...

A simple account would be to first argue that "'it is raining' is true" means "it is raining", and then to argue that "it is raining" is meaningful on...

You're just asserting that antirealism is "obviously" wrong. It's not obvious to the antirealist. The antirealist will argue that it is your "common s...

This is the very thing that the anti-realist disagrees with. The ant-realist claims that we can know that there are no unknowable truths. In fact, the...

No it hasn't. What do you think the truth or falsity of "there are unknowable truths" is knowable means? It means that one of these is true: a) "there...

Yes. The truth or falsity of "there are unknowable truths" is knowable. The realist will say that it is knowable that "there are unknowable truths" is...

Remember that there are four options, not two: 1. "there are unknowable truths" is knowably true 2. "there are unknowable truths" is unknowably true 3...

You assume "there are unknowable truths" is unknowable and then conclude "there are unknowable truths" is knowable. This is still a contradiction. You...

Fair, so I suppose I should "if P then Q" means "not-P or Q or both".

That is literally a contradiction. The first part in bold is saying that "there are unknowable truths" is unknowable and the second part in bold is sa...

I explained it in that previous post. You go from a) "there are unknowable truths" is unknowably true to b) "there are unknowable truths" is knowably ...

A ? ¬A ? A ? ¬A

No you haven't. You've just asserted it, hence why you are begging the question.

"If P then Q" means "not P or Q". "If A then not A" means "not A or not A". "not A or not A" is not a contradiction. "If it rains then it doesn't rain...

Well, if you're talking about practical enforcement then I suppose it's the armed forced which has the final say.

A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both houses and three quarters of the states.

Well, he certainly can't be elected again. That would require a constitutional amendment which ain't happening. A grey area is if he is nominated as S...

It's cool, we're better than them. I'd suggest letting the Scandinavians take the lead, they seem to know what they're doing.