Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion of {linguistic truth} Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:10:10 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 142 Message-ID: References:

<535636bb8095cdedbe3140d17c5376e941b2bf15@i2pn2.org> <1130d9442779762352890b71d8eec517adbb1615@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:10:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be3ab62c57446c7ddf1fbbd69383ba43"; logging-data="850675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zDtmF67Pas/L8RIVRk40l" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:k5VscII991XhmLTth8ljlRBGGFo= In-Reply-To: <1130d9442779762352890b71d8eec517adbb1615@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6930 On 9/6/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/5/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/5/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 9/5/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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 the way the linguistic truth actually works. >>>> Millions of these stipulated relations in a knowledge hierarchy >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) >>>> comprise human knowledge expressed in language. >>>> >>>> Stipulated relations are like the Prolog Facts. Truth preserving >>>> operations are like the Prolog Rules. Anything unprovable by >>>> Facts and Rules in the system is untrue in the system. >>>> >>>> Self-contradictory expressions are rejected as not truth bearers >>>> instead of categorized as undecidable propositions. >>> >>> Which just shows you don't even understand the problem that Gettier >>> was pointing out. It isn't "bad logic", it is knowing you have a >>> correct interpretation of your observations. >>> >>> Your problem is it is impossible to determine "sufficient verification". >>> >> >> It was a justified true belief (all three were stipulated) >> except the justification had a loophole allowing it to be >> insufficient justification under Gettier. > > And the problem is you can't just "define away" that insufficiency. > > Your problem is you just don't know enough to see the problem, and thus > assume there isn't one, which is EXACTLY the sort of thing Gettier was > pointing out. One of the examples was deducing there was a fire because > they saw smoke, but the "smoke" was just a cloud of insects, and not > smoke, attracted to the fire that wasn't creating smoke. > > The justification was incorrect, so should we call that knowledge of > fire, and if someone can be convinced they "know" something, when they > don't, were they correct in calling it "knowledge", and if we can't > actually know that we know something, do we even know it, even if it > might be true? > >> >> Just like it is stipulated to be true, it is now stipulated >> to be "sufficient justification". The strongest justification >> is a necessary consequence from stipulated truths. > > No, you are just showing your ignorance for the words or what the > problem is. > > It is not "stipulated" that knowledge is true, it is a definitional > requirement. And the problem that Gettier was talking about is that we > can't be certain our interpretation of our observation is correct, so we > can't be sure our reaso > >> >> *The simplest example of this is the syllogism* >> Major premise: All humans are mortal. >> Minor premise: All Greeks are humans. >> Conclusion/Consequent: All Greeks are mortal. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure > > Which, since it has no "observations" in it, doesn't talk about the > issue here. > It provides a concrete example of sufficient justification thus conclusively proving the sufficient justification exists. >> >> Other justifications would be less certain >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/ >> > > Which seems to mean that you are just trying to define away the problem > by ignoring it. A justified true belief is impossibly false because it is stipulated to only apply to true beliefs. > Gettier is talking about knowledge that comes from > observations, and the fact that it seems impossible to determine if we > are "correctly interpreting" or observations of the world. > Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#Case_I Sufficient evidence that Smith got the job would be the boss tells Smith he got the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#Case_II Smith knows that Brown really is in Barcelona on the sufficient basis that Smith travels to Barcelona and sees Brown in Barcelona. > Thus, the question of can we actually have empirical knowledge? > We can look at out left hand and although it looks feels and acts like a left hand it is really a fifteen story office building? > You are just showing your short sightedness by pontificating about > things you do not understand. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer