Michael

You said "he conclusion was false at the time" (and "at the time, at least one of the premises must have been false"). How could it (or they) be false...

Then there is no T-schema to be false. So, as I said, the T-schema must always be true. As does the concept of cats on mats. ;)

They can't be false else we'd have a contradiction. "P" is true if P "P" is false if not P We can't allow that "P" isn't true even if P or that "P" is...

It can't be false. It follows from premises which can't be false.

It's true and never has been or will be false. Furthermore, its truth is not dependent on special circumstances. It's necessarily true. Your words are...

There is no way to avoid it. I've provided you the argument: "X" is true if X "X" is false if not X The conclusion "X" is true iff X necessarily follo...

"My" T-schema is just the T-schema, which is: "X" is true iff X. It doesn't imply the second version of 2). So I must maintain that it was the case th...

Hillary... Or was that a joke? Forgive me for being dense if it was.

The T-schema doesn't say "X" was true iff X happened. It says "X happened" is true iff X happened. What I said is that the T-schema can be read in eit...

What about Clinton? Are we all expecting Sanders to win over her?

I know. As I said before, the T-schema doesn't say "X is happening" was truthfully said at the time iff X happened. It says "X happened" is true iff X...

:D Apologies (oops, I did it again).

You're asking if a non-existent sentence was or wasn't true. But that's like asking if the non-existent King of France is or isn't bald. I'm not shift...

This is like asking "do you accept that the King of France is not bald?" It's a nonsensical question. Again, if you want to reject "X" is true iff X t...

The T-schema doesn't say X happened iff "X is happening" was truthfully said at the time; it says X happened iff "X happened" is true. If dinosaurs wa...

By using language. How do we explain anything?

Why is that the conclusion? All I've done is reversed the order of the T-schema. X iff "X" is true means the same as "X" is true iff X. So let's see i...

I agree. The Great Whatever's criticism is due to (mis-)interpreting the statement as the above. X iff "X" is true follows from "X" is true iff X. "X"...

A subjunctive conditional is a counterfactual conditional, and the T-schema doesn't seem to use a counterfactual conditional. If it did (pun intended)...

1b) is: (C ? P) ? (¬C ? ¬P) Using transposition this gives us: (C ? P) ? (P ? C) Which is material equivalence.

Por favor.

Let's just agree that we're all going to argue in favour of whichever outcome satisfies our principles and personal interests.

It might not have been his intention but the logic of a biconditional is such that it can be read in either direction. I'm not sure how this makes a d...

The example I gave didn't use a counterfactual meaning. It used ordinary English. If "horses are equine animals" is true then horses are equine animal...

The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

Which part? You agreed with 'If "horses" and "equine animals" are synonymous then "horses are equine animals" is true' in your previous post and 'If "...

I've already addressed that. The use-mention error is when you say that rabbits is 7 letters long.

Clearly this discussion is never going to get anywhere. I'm calling it a day.

In that situation if "horses are rabbits" is true then horses are rabbits (where the language of the sentence mentioned is the language of the sentenc...

And I have shown you how a rejection of it leads to incoherence. X is Y but "X is Y" is false (where both the sentence used and the sentence mentioned...

You've already accepted my argument. When you agreed that to be un caballo is to be a horse you accepted to be a rabbit is to be a horse. Your continu...

Yes, "self-referential". Thanks. Apply the logic to English, where English is both mentioned and used. If "horses" and "equine animals" are synonymous...

I haven't switched languages. The "this sentence" is a recursive reference. The sentence "given that 'horses' means 'rabbits' in this language, horses...

If the truth of "horses are rabbits" depends on "horses" meaning "rabbits" (in this language), and if horses are rabbits if "horses are rabbits" is tr...

I have repeatedly said that the conclusion is to be understood as speaking New English, where "horse" means "rabbit", and have repeatedly said that Th...

Thanks

Do you know where he explains his change?

And the schema works for the New English language, where "horse" means "rabbit", since both the antecedent and the consequent are true in all circumst...

I'm not saying they didn't.

If I say that "horse" denotes having properties A, B, and C and if I say that this animal is a horse then I am saying that this animal has properties ...

Then I still don't understand why you think that the T-schema should baffle me. I understand it quite well.

If the word "horse" denotes properties A, B, and C (or the things that have them) then to be a horse is to have properties A, B, and C. I can't make s...

Wouldn't you say that to be a horse is to have the properties denoted by the word "horse".

I may have misunderstood you, but were you saying that the T-schema only works if the sentence used on the right-hand side says something true about t...

Then forget the individuals that bear the properties in the case of the common noun. So on the one hand we have a proper noun that denotes an individu...

What I'm trying to say is that identity is a linguistic imposition. Which is not the same as saying that physiology or marital status is a linguistic ...

No I haven't. I have repeatedly said that I haven't. I have gone to great pains to avoid any such equivocation. You're trying to force such an equivoc...

So why can I substitute the English word "horse" with the Spanish alternative but not my New English alternative?

Do you accept that to be un caballo is to be a horse?

How does reference work? What sort of mechanism is required for words to refer to things? Can computers emulate that mechanism when using words?