Path: ...!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: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:24:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <vbk8j9$1u1js$4@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> <vbh1n7$19hd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlv7$1c7u5$10@dont-email.me> <vbjq33$1shau$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 15:24:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="807c5ae02fef01679b819cece75165da";
	logging-data="2033276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gdgaGbSzsKY6SHf3cDUls"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4UIevlX5Uv/EOJagvtkJhHhyWTc=
In-Reply-To: <vbjq33$1shau$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4492

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


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