Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbs1nf$3im2p$11@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 07:16:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 119 Message-ID: <vbs1nf$3im2p$11@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> <vbnbps$2g6vo$2@dont-email.me> <vbp3r5$2svm1$1@dont-email.me> <vbphp9$2vfau$4@dont-email.me> <vbrg7v$3fphv$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:16:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96"; logging-data="3758169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FKUJINmKbOgZrZfQV1LPV" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7kGflpC68juUc6LSHwG7MkMcLYA= In-Reply-To: <vbrg7v$3fphv$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6585 On 9/11/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-09-10 13:32:25 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 9/10/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-09-09 17:38:04 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> It is not that incompleteness cannot be differentiated >>>> from inconsistency it is that the inconsistency of >>>> self-contradiction has been mistaken for undecidability >>>> instead of invalid input. >>> >>> Of course incompleteness can be differentiated from incosistency. >> >> Self-contradictory expressions are incorrect deemed to be >> undecidable expressions instead of invalid expressions. > > Invalid expression is a non-expression (i.e., a string that does > not satisfy the syntax rules of an expression) used as if it were > an expression. > >> Is this "actual piece of shit" "a rainbow" or "a car engine"? >> I can't decide, therefore the formal system is incomplete. >> (The correct answer is neither, yet the correct answer is not allowed). > > Who allows the question but not the correct answer? You? > The expressivity of language allows this. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer