| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vbmsbj$2dpff$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: sci.logic Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 08:14:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 110 Message-ID: <vbmsbj$2dpff$3@dont-email.me> References: <vb0lj5$1c1kh$1@dont-email.me> <vb1o9g$1g7lq$1@dont-email.me> <vb3t1j$22k1l$1@dont-email.me> <vb4aq6$2r7ok$1@dont-email.me> <vb6p9v$3aebo$1@dont-email.me> <vb70k8$3b4ub$2@dont-email.me> <vbepsc$q8v6$1@dont-email.me> <vbes94$punj$12@dont-email.me> <24f85bcd40f57685aab93d45f15501178e526d0f@i2pn2.org> <vbh3td$1a0lq$1@dont-email.me> <vbhkej$1c7u5$4@dont-email.me> <2980c2ea93dacce585730f55f07d76e44769e1d4@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 15:14:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c28129a9e933e7547d426856e6a8cad"; logging-data="2549231"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lESW/EDyf+80Kwmh53z0y" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/yJ3S9RKC1qWA2hN9rvbuORNwAU= In-Reply-To: <2980c2ea93dacce585730f55f07d76e44769e1d4@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6086 On 9/7/2024 8:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/7/24 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/7/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-09-06 23:41:16 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>> >>>> On 9/6/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/6/2024 6:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-09-03 12:49:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 12:24:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 12:56:16 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> With a Justified true belief, in the Gettier cases >>>>>>>>>>> the observer does not know enough to know its true >>>>>>>>>>> yet it remains stipulated to be true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My original correction to this was a JTB such that the >>>>>>>>>>> justification necessitates the truth of the belief. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> With a [Sufficiently Justified belief], it is stipulated >>>>>>>>>>> that the observer does have a sufficient reason to accept >>>>>>>>>>> the truth of the belief. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What could be a sufficient reason? Every justification of every >>>>>>>>>> belief involves other belifs that could be false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the justification to be sufficient the consequence of >>>>>>>>> the belief must be semantically entailed by its justification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the belief is about something real then its justification >>>>>>>> involves claims about something real. Nothing real is certain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think that is correct. >>>>>>> My left hand exists right now even if it is >>>>>>> a mere figment of my own imagination and five >>>>>>> minutes ago never existed. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I don't know and can't (at least now) verify whether your left >>>>>> hand exists or ever existed I can't regard that as a counter- >>>>>> example. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the belief is not about something real then it is not clear >>>>>>>> whether it is correct to call it "belief". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *An axiomatic chain of inference based on this* >>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says >>>>>>> that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, >>>>>>> the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: >>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between >>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears >>>>>>> the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ >>>>>>> are not of types fitting together. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>> >>>>>> The concepts of knowledge and truth are applicable to the knowledge >>>>>> whether that is what certain peple meant when using those words. >>>>>> Whether or to what extent that theory can be said to be true is >>>>>> another problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The fundamental architectural overview of all Prolog implementations >>>>> is the same True(x) means X is derived by applying Rules (AKA truth >>>>> preserving operations) to Facts. >>>> >>>> But Prolog can't even handle full first order logic, only basic >>>> propositions. >>> >>> The logic behind Prolog is restricted enough that incompleteness cannot >>> be differentiated from consistency. It seems that Olcott wants a logic >>> with that impossibility. >>> >> >> Just the architecture of Prolog Facts and Rules such that >> (a) Facts are expressions stipulated to be true. >> (b) Rules are truth preserving operations. >> (c) Expression x is only true in L when x is derived >> by applying Rules to Facts in L. >> >> Underlying this is a knowledge ontology inheritance >> hierarchy that is similar to a type hierarchy of an >> simultaneously arbitrary number of orders of logic >> in the same formal system. >> >> > > Just shows you are flapping your mouth with gibberish and don't actually > know what you are talking about. I am stipulating how those terms work in my adaptation of Prolog you freaking nitwit. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer