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 07:28:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <26d37ec399ccda203f889fb47b5fd20e72819557@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$1@dont-email.me> <vbem5f$pont$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:28:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1049103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3669
Lines: 68

On 9/6/24 7:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has been used
>> by DG Schwartz in 1985.
>>
> 
> This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction
> yet unequivocal.
> 
> I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a
> similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}.

In other words, you are just admitting that you don't know what you are 
doing, as you don't really get redefine fundamental terms and stay in 
the logic system.

> 
> Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely
> based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical
> truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be
> verified as true.
> 

So, I guess you don't think the pythagorous formula, that "the square of 
the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two 
sides" is "proved true" as it can not be proved entirely based on its 
MEANING expressed in the language. Since its "proof" isn't based on just 
the actual meaning of any of the words used, it can't be true by your 
definition.

Sorry, you are just proving that you are a total idiot.