1 edit
Originally posted by EAPOESure. One of these propositions is true, or as you say, a truth.
Can you give an example of a truth?
An FSM exists.
An FSM does not exist.
Determing which one is true, or as you say, establishing one as a truth, is an exercise in knowledge requiring information gathering, and is irrelevant to the subject of this call-out.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow do you go about establishing a truth?
Sure. One of these propositions is true, or as you say, a truth.
An FSM exists.
An FSM does not exist.
Determing which one is true, or as you say, establishing one as a truth, is an exercise in knowledge requiring information gathering, and is irrelevant to the subject of this call-out.
Can you give an example of a truth?
1+1=2 True or False?
As conscious experience is subjective we can answer the question as follows.
True. . . (Every time the calculation has been carried out and observed the answer has been two. By consensus of many carrying through this operation and obtaining the answer 2 it is concluded the proposition 1+1=2 is true. But not an absolute truth, the proviso is held that if the operation is carried out and a different answer is generated, the result will be investigated and if as a result the logic is shown to be at fault it will be revised.)
Not absolutely true. True only as a result of consensus.
Originally posted by EAPOEYou are very confused about several notions, including truth, knowledge, subjectivity, deliberation, deduction, and induction. You also fail to express your questions and your claims clearly. There's not much more I can do to help you, other than to advise you that you need some help sorting these things out.
How do you go about establishing a truth?
Can you give an example of a truth?
1+1=2 True or False?
As conscious experience is subjective we can answer the question as follows.
True. . . (Every time the calculation has been carried out and observed the answer has been two. By consensus of many carrying through this operation and obtaining the answer ...[text shortened]... to be at fault it will be revised.)
Not absolutely true. True only as a result of consensus.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWould you like to explain why my post is so confused?
You are very confused about several notions, including truth, knowledge, subjectivity, deliberation, deduction, and induction. You also fail to express your questions and your claims clearly. There's not much more I can do to help you, other than to advise you that you need some help sorting these things out.
🙂🙂🙂
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesTake the following proposition, then,
Sure. It is nomologically impossible for a proposition of the form "There exists a fictional X" to be false, since the proposition itself is conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim.
"There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Oblanceolate Appendage."
Is this proposition itself conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim?
What if the "fictional FSM" referred to is the fictional FSM as commonly understood?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeUntil you tell me whether it does or doesn't, there is no proposition before me to comment on, only linguistic nonsense. I have been trying to communicate this to you all along and you just don't get it. You continue to mistake a statement with ambiguous terms for a proposition with multiple truth values.
Is this proposition itself conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim?
What if the "fictional FSM" referred to is the fictional FSM as commonly understood?
Doctor, interesting post and i think you put up a good argument to support your point; not trying to catch you out here but could you give me an example of something that is - beyond any reasonable doubt - true? likewise, could you also give me an example of something that is false and will always remain in this state...?
Originally posted by eatmybishopSure.
Doctor, interesting post and i think you put up a good argument to support your point; not trying to catch you out here but could you give me an example of something that is - beyond any reasonable doubt - true? likewise, could you also give me an example of something that is false and will always remain in this state...?
An example of something that is true: All circles have a radius.
An example of something that is false: There exists a circle that has no radius.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPAWN:
Until you tell me whether it does or doesn't, there is no proposition before me to comment on, only linguistic nonsense. I have been trying to communicate this to you all along and you just don't get it. You continue to mistake a statement with ambiguous terms for a proposition with multiple truth values.
Would you accept that the following proposition is true?
(A): "There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Noodly Appendage."
DS:
Sure. It is nomologically impossible for a proposition of the form "There exists a fictional X" to be false, since the proposition itself is conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim.
PAWN:
(B): "There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Oblanceolate Appendage."
Is this proposition itself conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim?
NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, IF YOU SAY THAT (A) MUST BE TRUE, BY SOMETHING LIKE STIPULATIVE DEFINITION ,THEN, TO BE CONSISTENT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO SAY THAT (B) IS TRUE, FOR THE SAME REASON, RIGHT?
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeNo, because A was stipulated to be a proposition. B was not because it was given that its terms are ambiguous.
PAWN:
Would you accept that the following proposition is true?
(A): "There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Noodly Appendage."
DS:
Sure. It is nomologically impossible for a proposition of the form "There exists a fictional X" to be false, since the proposition itself is conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim.
PAWN:
(B): THEN, TO BE CONSISTENT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO SAY THAT (B) IS TRUE, FOR THE SAME REASON, RIGHT?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNor to A, presumably.
Yes, but then you're not allowed to attribute multiple meanings to B.
Suppose the fictional FSM referred to in both A and B is the fictional FSM as described on Wikipedia.
Can I now stipulate that both A and B are propositions, and that each possesses a singular meaning?