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

On 9/10/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/9/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/9/24 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/8/2024 12:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/8/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:

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
>
*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
>
>

If that is your claim, then a statement is Linguistically FALSE if there is NOT such a connection (verses there is a connection to its negation), since THAT is the definiton of the Truth Predicate of Tarski, it results in TRUE if the statement is True, or FALSE if the statement is either FALSE or not actually a truth bearer, and it is that later part that causes the problem.
>

>
LP = "this sentence is not true"
according to MY truth predicate
~True(LP) & ~True(~LP) MEANING NOT ALLOWED IN ANY FORMAL
SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FREAKING BEATER OF TRUTH.

>
So, you admit that you system can't have a truth predicate per the required definition either.
>

 No jackass. I admit that my truth predicate is smart
enough to reject invalid input you freaking moron.
I admit the every system that does not do this is AFU !
 

On other words, you admit that it doesn't meet the requirements to give a TRUE/FALSE answer for EVERY input.
In other words, you admit you are too stupid to know what you are talking about, because you don't actually know the definition of a truth predicate.
You are just trying to declair that everything is just AFU, but you con't actually "fix" it, becasuse you don't know what you need to do to build another system, because that is to hard for you to understand from the "Clift Notes" you have studied about logic.
Sorry, that IS the facts,