Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:35:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <535636bb8095cdedbe3140d17c5376e941b2bf15@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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 02:35:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="993900"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbc9t5$bdtb$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3503
Lines: 67

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".

And, you are just the prefect example of this, as you insist that false 
statement must be true, because you THINK you have sufficient 
verification, but the problem is you don't actually know what you are 
talking about.


> 
>>> Empirically verified to be true in the current moment:
>>> I have a left hand right now, is sufficient.
>>
>> I can't verify that.
>>
> 
>