Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion of {linguistic truth}

On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said:
 

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 <is> the way the linguistic truth actually works.

 I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has been used
by DG Schwartz in 1985.
 

This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction
yet unequivocal.
I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a
similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}.
Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely
based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical
truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be
verified as true.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer