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

On 9/6/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/6/2024 6:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/6/24 7:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/6/2024 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/6/24 7:17 AM, olcott wrote:

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}.

>
In other words, you are just admitting that you don't know what you are doing, as you don't really get redefine fundamental terms and stay in the logic system.
>

>
I came up with a brand new idea and gave it an appropriate name.
Truth in the system that I defined only pertains to relations
between finite strings. It is the actual philosophical foundation
of every expression X of language L that is true on the basis of
its meaning expressed in language L.
>
You can't get away with saying that all new ideas are inherently wrong.

>
They are when you try to inject them into existing systems.
>

 Making the definition an analytic truth unequivocal so that
screwballs like Willard Van Orman Quine can't f--- it up is
very straight forward.
 https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Linguistic truth is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings of symbols. Some of these relations are stipulated to be true
"an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true" (Curry)
 Expression X of language L is true in L if and only if there exists
a sequence of truth preserving operations in L to the semantic meaning
M of X in L otherwise X is untrue in L.
 

Which just shows you don't understand what you are talking about, and you mind is too simple to understand the issues they are talking about.
Sorry, that is just the facts, and your refusal to look at them just proves your utter stupidity,
You seem to start with the idea that people must be as dumb as you, which is a false assumption.n