Michael

Mmm, beer at work on a Friday afternoon...

True, it would be a problem when issuing new stock. So in this sense a failing marketing is like panic-inducing media? Well, not me as I'm not in the ...

I read that article. It seems to agree with @"Landru"; stock prices are only really of interest to the investors and the management. It also explicitl...

So a bad economy drives people to sell and the market value to drop?

Why bother indeed. The redundancy of it is the very thing that deflationary approaches to truth try to show. Only because you brought up the deflation...

The bit in bold doesn't make sense. That "X" is true iff X is not that "'X' is true" iff X. Does "the present king of France is bald" correspond to so...

You didn't say that "P" is true iff P. You said that "P" iff P.

Which is an ungrammatical sentence.

That's an ungrammatical sentence. What's it supposed to mean?

You're confusing me now. You suggested that the deflationary approach to truth doesn't escape the logic of correspondence. I provided an explanation o...

I've given another account; Frege's account.

The title of the discussion is "Deflationary Truth and Correspondence".

To explain the deflationary account, here's Frege: So what it amounts to is the claim that the sentences "'snow is white' is true" and "snow is white"...

I'm confused. The bit you quoted from Thorongil was directed at mcdoodle, not me. I don't know where charity comes into it. If you want to use the wor...

If that's the implication. Because it is a fact that a logical relation is "an interpropositional relation in which a proposition is related to anothe...

Logical relations are between sentences. It doesn't make sense to say that some sentence is logically related to an experience (whether actual or coun...

From here: "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."

And how is that different to the weak atheist? He also claims that he has no knowledge that God exists. And you can also be without knowledge of God a...

I still don't get it. The agnostic claims that there is not enough evidence to suggest either that God exists or that God doesn't exist, and so doesn'...

Seems the same as weak agnosticism.

What do you mean by this? That we use the word "truth" to talk about knowledge?

You missed the point. If the word "truth" is troublesome for you then why not abandon the term? You can get by simply by talking about "actuality" as ...

But clearly Mongrel takes issue with the word "truth". He wants it to also refer to "actuality". So why not just use the word "actuality"? What's gain...

An atheist isn't just someone who doesn't believe that God exists; he's someone who believes that God doesn't exist. It's a different thing. For examp...

I don't get the objection. In that case you're not describing something that 'happens'.

I'm curious; what difference does it make? Is there something special about the word "truth"? If you want to talk about what happens then talk about w...

To make this very simple, this is what your argument needs to be: P1. ?x: C(P(x)) ? O(P(x)) P2. ?x: P(x) ? V(x) C1. ?x: C(V(x)) ? O(V(x)) Which is to ...

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering". Can you rewrite it in a "one ought X" format? Usually I'd under...

To clarify, the first premise is "one ought prevent gratuitous suffering"? That's not a conclusion. That's a tautology.

Really? Because the article you cite even says "One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all..."

No it doesn't. Look: One ought make gratuitous suffering preventable Gratuitous suffering is preventable iff it is possible to adopt a vegan diet It i...

The second. But neither the first nor the second applies to P15. P15 is nothing like that example.

Still not making sense. I understand the transitive property as saying if 2 > 1 and if 3 > 2 then 3 > 1, or as saying if a = b and if b = c then a = c...

But it doesn't. Nowhere in "¬Pa (= O¬a)", "¬a = b", or "c" does "d" appear.

Well, if I offered the following premise then what defence would you look for from me? If London is the capital city of England then it is raining

You're just repeating the premise. I want you to defend the premise. Notice how you're trying to defend the premise by treating it as a syllogism, say...

You're being very difficult here. Please defend premise 15.

And how do you defend that premise? How do you defend "(A ? B ? C) ? D"? How do you defend "If it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering caused by foo...

I'm not acting as if the argument is invalid. I asked you to defend P14 (when it was P9). You said that the consequent is deduced from the antecedent....

I'm questioning the truth of P14, and so by extension the soundness of the argument. When I first asked you to defend P14 (when it was P9) you said th...

And I'm questioning this hypothetical premise. I want you to justify this hypothetical premise. You can't use your argument to justify the premise if ...

P1 isn't an example of modus ponens. Using your example above, let A be "2 > 1", let B be "3 > 2", let C be "4 > 3", and let D be "5 > 6". P1 (A ? B ?...

And I'm questioning P1. What justifies the material implication? D certainly can't be derived from A, B, and C. So it must be something else.

You can't derive d if d isn't in the premises. Consider: P1. A ? B P2. A C1. C Notice that it doesn't work. Yeah. And as I said above, you can only de...

So "it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering" is logically equivalent to "one ought not gratuitous suffering". Obviously that makes no sense. Previou...

That still doesn't follow: It is wrong to allow X X is preventable iff Y is possible Some can Y Therefore those who can Y ought Y Either the conclusio...

Same issue with P14. It is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices Gratuitous suffering caused by food production prac...

P9 still suffers from the same problem. The consequent isn't deducible from the antecedent. Therefore the material implication must be defended on oth...

That works. But what's Z? "Make gratuitous suffering preventable"? Then "Y is the only means to Z" is "adopting a vegan diet is the only means to make...

Sure. But then the conclusion is "one ought make it possible to adopt a vegan diet". If the conclusion is supposed to be "one ought adopt a vegan diet...