Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion
 of {linguistic truth}
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:34:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1130d9442779762352890b71d8eec517adbb1615@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb0lkb$1c1kh$2@dont-email.me> <vb1hdi$1feme$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4erg$2s0uc$1@dont-email.me> <vb6hv7$39dvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71fn$3b4ub$5@dont-email.me> <vbbm40$8k2u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbc9t5$bdtb$1@dont-email.me>
 <535636bb8095cdedbe3140d17c5376e941b2bf15@i2pn2.org>
 <vbdu0u$mitl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:34:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1049103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbdu0u$mitl$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5683
Lines: 110

On 9/5/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/5/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/5/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:03:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 13:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 03:04:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
>>>>>>>>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the
>>>>>>>>> truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The remaining loophole is the lack of an exact definition
>>>>>>>> of "sufficient reason".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ultimately sufficient reason is correct semantic
>>>>>>> entailment from verified facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is "verified" facts: what is sufficient verification?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stipulated to be true is always sufficient:
>>>>> Cats are a know if animal.
>>>>
>>>> Insufficient for practtical purposes. You may stipulate that
>>>> nitroglycerine is not poison but it can kill you anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that <is> the way the linguistic truth actually works.
>>> Millions of these stipulated relations in a knowledge hierarchy
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>> comprise human knowledge expressed in language.
>>>
>>> Stipulated relations are like the Prolog Facts. Truth preserving
>>> operations are like the Prolog Rules. Anything unprovable by
>>> Facts and Rules in the system is untrue in the system.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory expressions are rejected as not truth bearers
>>> instead of categorized as undecidable propositions.
>>
>> Which just shows you don't even understand the problem that Gettier 
>> was pointing out. It isn't "bad logic", it is knowing you have a 
>> correct interpretation of your observations.
>>
>> Your problem is it is impossible to determine "sufficient verification".
>>
> 
> It was a justified true belief (all three were stipulated)
> except the justification had a loophole allowing it to be
> insufficient justification under Gettier.

And the problem is you can't just "define away" that insufficiency.

Your problem is you just don't know enough to see the problem, and thus 
assume there isn't one, which is EXACTLY the sort of thing Gettier was 
pointing out. One of the examples was deducing there was a fire because 
they saw smoke, but the "smoke" was just a cloud of insects, and not 
smoke, attracted to the fire that wasn't creating smoke.

The justification was incorrect, so should we call that knowledge of 
fire, and if someone can be convinced they "know" something, when they 
don't, were they correct in calling it "knowledge", and if we can't 
actually know that we know something, do we even know it, even if it 
might be true?

> 
> Just like it is stipulated to be true, it is now stipulated
> to be "sufficient justification". The strongest justification
> is a necessary consequence from stipulated truths.

No, you are just showing your ignorance for the words or what the 
problem is.

It is not "stipulated" that knowledge is true, it is a definitional 
requirement. And the problem that Gettier was talking about is that we 
can't be certain our interpretation of our observation is correct, so we 
can't be sure our reaso

> 
> *The simplest example of this is the syllogism*
> Major premise: All humans are mortal.
> Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
> Conclusion/Consequent: All Greeks are mortal.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure

Which, since it has no "observations" in it, doesn't talk about the 
issue here.

> 
> Other justifications would be less certain
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
> 

Which seems to mean that you are just trying to define away the problem 
by ignoring it. Gettier is talking about knowledge that comes from 
observations, and the fact that it seems impossible to determine if we 
are "correctly interpreting" or observations of the world.

Thus, the question of can we actually have empirical knowledge?

You are just showing your short sightedness by pontificating about 
things you do not understand.