Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 06:17:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 13:17:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be3ab62c57446c7ddf1fbbd69383ba43";
	logging-data="850675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18C5EyHVoKsfTy9m9fbj371"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xvrvztW+JyyGWSsCPX6kGdKEiFQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbem5f$pont$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3170

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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer