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

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.

 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.
 

So, I guess you don't think the pythagorous formula, that "the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides" is "proved true" as it can not be proved entirely based on its MEANING expressed in the language. Since its "proof" isn't based on just the actual meaning of any of the words used, it can't be true by your definition.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are a total idiot.