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

On 9/12/24 12:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/11/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/11/24 7:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/11/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-10 13:46:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/10/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-09 13:03:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/9/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-08 13:24:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used the term.
>

>
I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM

>
Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used it before?
Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept?
>

>
A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a
new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning
for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

>
A stipulative definition is a temporary hack when it is not clear
what the definition should be or when a need for a good definitino
is not expected. A stipluative definition is not valid outside the
opus or discussion where it is presented.
>

*LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN*
When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic
meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in
language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the
True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist.
Copyright 2024 Olcott

>
With that definition Tarski proved that linguistic truth is not
identifiable.
>

>
No he did not. Tarski's proof that begins with the Liar Paradox
gets rejected at step (3).

>
In the system Tarski was using (i.e. ordinary logic) a proof cannot
be rejected.
>

>
If the system is too stupid to reject invalid input
then it is too stupid. Ordinary logic is too stupid
to even say the Liar Paradox that I what I invented
minimal type theory.
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>
LP := ~True(LP)
(0) not  (1)
(1) true (0) // cycle in digraph

>
For ordinary first order logic it is possible to make a program that
reads a text file and checks whether it is a vlaid proof. Is the same
possible for your Minimal Type Theory?
>

>
I don't need any of that. All that I need to do
is reject the Liar Paradox as invalid input because
it specifies a cycle in its evaluation sequence.
Tarski was simply far too stupid to this this.
>

>
And thus prove you don't understand what you are talking about,
>
Tarski understand that it creates a cycle,

 What about my dumbed down version?
Is "a fish" true or false?
 Tarski was simply too stupid to understand
that non-truth-bearers are a type mismatch error
for any Boolean True(English, "a fish") predicate.
 Mankind with very rare exceptions is too stupid
to know that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
 That other people are stupid provides zero evidence
that I am incorrect.

No, you are just proving your own stupidity.
First The "L" is True(L, x) is supposed to be the langauge of a formal logic system, which "English" is not, so your argument BEGINS with a type error,
Second, yes, if "a fish" isn't a statement in the language of the formal logic system True could "reject" it, but as Tarski proved (and you ignored because it is above your intelect) that the statement: "X in L is defined as ~True(L,x)" *IS* a statement expressible in the logic system, True isn't allowed to "reject" the statement, but if it isn't true (and it wouldn't if you were right that it can't have a truth maker) then True(L, x) would be false, but that makes x which is the logical negation of that result TRUE, and thus your claim that it didn't have a truth-maker incorrect, as the True predicate becomes its truth-maker.
The issue is that once a system is powerful enough to allow the creation of self-referencing statement, it can not have a truth predicate.

 

and that is why the truth predicate can't exist, because adding it to the system allows the cycle into the system as something that must be resolved, but can't.
>
Until you can show the error in the prior section that he was refering to to show why that statement CAN'T be formed, you are just stuck being the stupid liar.
>
Of course, the fact that you don't understand it gives your problems, but that just shows that your think it is ok to lie if you don't know the answer.
>
Sorry, that is just the actual facts, even if you are too stupid to understand it.