Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion of {linguistic truth}
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:09:11 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vbh1n7$19hd9$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$1@dont-email.me> <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 10:09:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0718f94d0f30d61f4b7b5b31b7d2bfcf";
	logging-data="1361321"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nhoWs26vcQMXyWo8O5RLn"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kadfYyjJY62MaUtAguCcaahKI+g=
Bytes: 3129

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.

-- 
Mikko