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: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:10:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ff5beef37b4e0aaa4b63c11f022b75f2d7f416b3@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <1130d9442779762352890b71d8eec517adbb1615@i2pn2.org>
 <vberf2$punj$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:10:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1049103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vberf2$punj$9@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7850
Lines: 170

On 9/6/24 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/6/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> It provides a concrete example of sufficient justification thus
> conclusively proving the sufficient justification exists.

Nope, just that you don't understand the logic you are talking about.

Gettier isn't talking about "Analytic Truth" which is a truth based on 
the defined definitions, but on Knowledge based on observation, i.e 
emperical knowledge.

> 
>>>
>>> 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. 
> 
> A justified true belief is impossibly false because it is stipulated
> to only apply to true beliefs.

And that is the problem, you can't TELL if it is a justified true 
belief, so you can't tell if it is actually knowledge.

> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#Case_I
> Sufficient evidence that Smith got the job would be the boss
> tells Smith he got the job.

Nope, The boss might have lied.

> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#Case_II
> Smith knows that Brown really is in Barcelona on the
> sufficient basis that Smith travels to Barcelona and
> sees Brown in Barcelona.

But the case described, he didn't, so not applicable.

All you are doing is proving that you belie that lying abot the problem 
is aceptable.

> 
>> Thus, the question of can we actually have empirical knowledge?
>>
> 
> We can look at out left hand and although it looks feels
> and acts like a left hand it is really a fifteen story
> office building?

Sure. You never heard of the brains in bottles conjecture?

That imagines that the world we perceive is nothing but signals 
generated to our neural interfaces and we are nothing more than a brain 
in a bottle imagining everything that goes on around us.

That is a conjecture that is impossible to prove or disprove by its nature.

> 
>> You are just showing your short sightedness by pontificating about 
>> things you do not understand.
> 
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========