You emphasized that a certain proposition had "to stay within the scope of S's belief". I'm asking how you determine what must be included or not with...
Okay. No problem. I'm just attempting to understand the position you're defending. How do you determine what would be included or not within the scope...
Okay. Am I correct in saying that - according to the position you're working from and/or defending - the scope of S's belief is determined by what S w...
:blush: Ah my friend... I've misunderstood you. My apologies for doubting your integrity. Stellar reply. Thank you for that. I'm still processing, but...
Well... that tells me that we must misunderstand one another. :worry: Perhaps it best to find places of agreement. S's belief is about a broken clock....
I've laid out several, and they've yet to have been given careful consideration. You've been drowning strawmen in the poison well instead. I've no ide...
The above applies to speaking. According to the accounting practice under examination, S would not say "I believe that that broken clock is working", ...
Well, the above reflects a large part of it. The differences are many but most all of them seem to be logical consequences of our respective positions...
Cool. Now we're getting somewhere useful. I'm afraid it will be much later in the evening before I can take the time needed to further explain other c...
You claim that the clock in S's belief is both... broken and not. You first claimed that the clock in S's belief was not broken, then agreed entirely ...
This looks suspiciously like unnecessarily multiplying entities. The clock in S's beliefs is the one they looked at, and it is most certainly a broken...
So, am I correct in thinking that you're claiming that S's attitude towards the broken clock at time t1 does not count as S believing that that partic...
Well, that's not the sort of thing we say when discussing propositional attitudes. Those are attitudes towards propositions. We don't talk about havin...
The above is what Banno believes about the notion of belief I'm working from. I do not take belief to be some form of mental furnishing. All furnishin...
The poisoning the well fallacy looms large here, my friend. I'm perfectly capable of making and defending my own position. I'm not going to spend the ...
May I suggest attending to what I've written? If you go back a couple of pages, to the beginning of this discussion, you'll see that instead of addres...
At time t1, S did not believe the clock was broken. At time t1, S believed the clock was working. It was not. S believed a broken clock was working. W...
In order to choose better, one must first know of better. For reasons that are far too numerous for me to get into here, I'm not at all certain that m...
Okay. So, at time t1, where's the proposition that S has an attitude towards. Earlier we agreed that S's attitude was towards the broken clock. Broken...
My only point about de re and de dicto would be that they too fail to take proper account of someone's belief at time t1, when - at that time - they b...
Sure, we can say stuff about other creatures' belief(s) using that form. Not so much the grammar of belief, but rather the grammar of our report. We c...
When an infant goes in search of its pacifier, he/she/they already believe that there is one to be found. That's an implicit belief that is not always...
I agree that "Not all our beliefs are explicit". I disagree with your example which was basically a report of all readers' belief. At time t1, you cla...
I place considerable value on bivalence. I'm not claiming "belief statements are not bivalent." I can't make sense of your use of the term belief. You...
Sure... judgment about what exists always comes via perspective. It does not follow from that that everything that ever existed does as well. Some par...
That's supposed to be a belief we already had that was not yet explicated We could neither assent nor agree with Banno's report until he penned the wo...
Comments