Michael

Asking if a thing is "real" is too ambiguous. Is a mirage real? Well, it's not a real oasis but it is a real mirage. So are universals real? Well, are...

Next he'll claim to have some sort of official seal of awesomeness. How arrogant would that be?

I'm not sure. But I am sure that the law of excluded middle isn't made true because some verification-transcendent conditions are satisfied. So, again...

Where am I missing it? I have never said that they're not worldly. In fact, I've repeatedly said that they are. And that's exactly why realism fails.

I didn't say that we need to speak of the empirical and linguistic context. I said that the empirical and linguistic context is what makes our talk of...

Except I haven't and I don't. Again, you read the strangest things from my comments.

Yes they have. That's what it means to be a realist. But we've been over this countless times before.

Ah, so LEM rather than LME. ;) Well, what leads anyone to believe it? Perhaps it's just an axiom. Perhaps it better describes the structure of our lan...

LME? Still about the rules of our language-game and the empirical contexts in which it's put to use. I see this and so it's appropriate to say that. W...

Not at all. I'm not saying either that "X" is true by virtue of some verification-transcendent condition or that "X" is false by virtue of some verifi...

I agree that either it is appropriate, given the rules of our language-game and the empirical context (e.g. my memory), to claim that "it happened" is...

So you accept that there are truth-conditions. That was the point. I'm not claiming that being "really true" is nonsensical. I'm claiming that being "...

But the basis of the wager is that in terms of probabilities and payoffs it is more practical to believe in God than not believe in God. But this is u...

Of course it matters. The decision matrix that provides one with an incentive to choose one way or another fails to apply when the number of options i...

You said that the wager is tenable due to the uncertainty surrounding life after death. I explained that it isn't because there's no way to wager in f...

The point is that Pascal's Wager doesn't address the situation where two conflicting religions each claim that a belief in their respective Gods ensur...

I don't get this "not even wrong" thing. Surely either cars blink or they don't. Those who say that cars blink (the blinkers) are wrong and those who ...

No, I'm saying that the fact-of-the-matter isn't some independent, verification-transcendent state-of-affairs. Either it's appropriate to say "it's tr...

Either it is appropriate, given the empirical situation (memory, experience, and so on) and the rules of our language-game, to answer with "it's true"...

Should be "oh person".

I suppose this is related to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis?

I don't see how "the truth conditions of our statements are determined by ... our conventional rules for predicating 'is true' of them" is any differe...

Presumably that part specifically refers to those statements which are said to be truth-apt. Greetings like "hello" and performances like "I christen ...

Interestingly I've found an account of Dummett's position which seems remarkably similar to @"StreetlightX"'s:

And what about the truth of "there exists a verification-transcendent actuality"? Presumably to be consistent one would have to say that this statemen...

I didn't say that (only) parts of language fall within the domain of the world. I said that (only) parts of the world fall within the domain of langua...

I didn't say that one can't make an ontological distinction. I said that one can make a semantic distinction before we even bring up ontology. I was a...

I don't see how saying that parts of the world fall within the domain of language and that parts of the world fall within the domain of not-language i...

Of course language is just another thing in the world. Who says it isn't? It certainly isn't some fiction that we've imagined. Simply saying that lang...

Sure, but the question is then on what else is needed. Is language -- and the empirical contexts in which it's used -- sufficient? Or is something whi...

The argument is: Premise 1. To be anti-realist is to reject verification-transcendent truths Premise 2. Your position rejects verification-transcenden...

Of course it does. Anti-realism is, by definition, a rejection of realism. If you reject the realist notion that truth is verification-transcendent th...

Because that's what it means to be a realist, as per Dummett's account in Realism where he coined the term "anti-realism" as the rejection of this vie...

It's anti-realist because the conditions required for the statement to be true are empirical or conceptual conditions and not verification-transcenden...

#1 is the anti-realist position.

Because the meaning and truth of statements like "the chair exists" is being tied up in/is dependent on empirical and conceptual behaviours/events rat...

And I would probably agree with this. I was just pointing out that your account of the classical problems seemed imprecise. They're not over how langu...

I don't think the classical problems are simply regarding how to 'bridge' the 'divide' between language and reality but between, for example, the stri...

There's certainly a theme that seems rather popular among us here.

Ice cream.

Sometimes answering a question with another question is more useful. An obvious example is in the classroom; when asked a question the teacher could e...

I can't see it now so it must be due to the aforementioned permissions issue. I'm guessing if the group can't edit and/or delete then they can flag in...

Well, on a laptop the "Edit" button isn't showing at all for other members' post, whether I click "Moderation Tools" or not. I also don't have the Del...

/uploads/resized/files/7l/mrwflfmcmx29v3vj.png Maybe it doesn't show for administrators?

Interestingly the "flag" option appears for moderators, too.

I don't understand this. As I said before, you can't go from "language is an aspect of the world" to "metaphysical realism obtains". At least now you'...

So? They can't in Yupik. In Yupik, "tuntussuqatarniksaitengqiggtuq" is the word and its morphemes (excepting "tuntu") are bound. So? That doesn't chan...

Also from Wikipedia: "To illustrate the relationship between words and morphemes, the English term "rice" is a single word consisting of only one morp...

They're morphemes as well as words. And in Yupik, "ssur", "qatar", "ni", "ksaite", "ngqiggte", and "uq" are morphemes with "tuntu" both morpheme and w...

You could ask the same thing about the word "unbreakable". Why is it a word and not a gap-free sentence? The sort of things that make "unbreakable" a ...