Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 9/5/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:It was a justified true belief (all three were stipulated)On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote: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.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.
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.
Your problem is it is impossible to determine "sufficient verification".
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.