Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:55:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <963deb8a36d48f5f8f47e795dff037cbfebe9486@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> <vbh1n7$19hd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlv7$1c7u5$10@dont-email.me> <vbjq33$1shau$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbk8j9$1u1js$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 17:55:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1287398"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbk8j9$1u1js$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5557
Lines: 105

On 9/8/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used the term.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM
>>
>> Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used it before?
>> Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept?
>>
> 
> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a
> new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning
> for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
> 
> *LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN*
> When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic
> meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in
> language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the
> True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist.
> Copyright 2024 Olcott
> 
> 
If that is your claim, then a statement is Linguistically FALSE if there 
is NOT such a connection (verses there is a connection to its negation), 
since THAT is the definiton of the Truth Predicate of Tarski, it results 
in TRUE if the statement is True, or FALSE if the statement is either 
FALSE or not actually a truth bearer, and it is that later part that 
causes the problem.

The problem arises because if the language L can express a statement like:

X is defined to be ~True(L, X)

Then if True(L, X) is false, then X, since it is the negation of that, 
must be TRUE, which leads to a contradiction as we have just shown that 
True(L, x) just returned FALSE for a TRUE statement.

Note, that the major part of the proof, that you tend to overlook, is 
showing that in the system L, based on the minimal requirements 
specified, that such a statement CAN be expressed.

You "Logic" tryies to say that it needs to "Reject" the statement, but 
"rejection" is not a possible result, BY DEFINITION, non-true statements 
are just false, even if they are non-sense.