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 19:10:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <76b071cabc815c206027daf886ce41cb994cb3d8@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <26d37ec399ccda203f889fb47b5fd20e72819557@i2pn2.org>
 <vbeqe1$punj$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:10:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1049103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbeqe1$punj$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5293
Lines: 103

On 9/6/24 7:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/6/2024 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I came up with a brand new idea and gave it an appropriate name.
> Truth in the system that I defined only pertains to relations
> between finite strings. It is the actual philosophical foundation
> of every expression X of language L that is true on the basis of
> its meaning expressed in language L.
> 
> You can't get away with saying that all new ideas are inherently wrong.

They are when you try to inject them into existing systems.

You need to be clear that you are creating a brand new system with these 
new definitions, and then you can not refer to anything from the old 
system until you actually show that you logic system gets you to them.

General Philosophy can be loose, but comp.theory is about FORMAL system, 
not just philosophy, and requires more rigor.


> 
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> I never limited meaning to words. Meaning is relations between
> finite strings. The body of {linguistic truth} is the body of
> {analytic truth} that the logical positivists promoted except
> it has been made unequivocal.
> 

So, what is the actual diffference in a formal system? In formal system 
all words have a precise meaning.

I think you don't understand what a formal system is, maybe you need to 
be talking in a newsgroup devoted to general philosophy, not a formal 
system.