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

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 <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.

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".
And, you are just the prefect example of this, as you insist that false statement must be true, because you THINK you have sufficient verification, but the problem is you don't actually know what you are talking about.

 

Empirically verified to be true in the current moment:
I have a left hand right now, is sufficient.

>
I can't verify that.
>