| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vbuafl$62lo$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:58:29 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 121 Message-ID: <vbuafl$62lo$1@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> <vbs1nf$3im2p$11@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:58:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="11ebd9b713b318498e2c824f33627516"; logging-data="199352"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19rTbecBFbfzwQkhMI8cw0B" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:V+bj+F1Ey9ObdL4fvgV8YpI0mtk= Bytes: 6644 On 2024-09-11 12:16:46 +0000, olcott said: > 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. Depends on the language. The formal language of the first order Peano arithmetic does not allow questions. -- Mikko