Originally posted by ColettiOh my God. I don't know why I put myself through this.
You think you can not be mistaken about truth values?!?
What is not subject to debate is that propositions are either true or false - even if YOU don't know which. Ignorance of the truth values of a proposition does not mean it is not a proposition.
Of course one can be mistaken about truth values.
However, one cannot be mistaken by holding an opinion. I can think chocolate is good, you can think it is not good, and neither of us is mistaken. This is what the Latin quote intends to convey.
You, however, hold that "Chocolate is good" is in fact a proposition, which means that is has a specific truth value. Under your scheme, if I think chocolate is good, and if you think it is not good, then one of us must be mistaken. This is a consequence of you insisting that opinions are beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat why I made it clear that it has to be true or false in the same respect, time, and place.
Oh my God. I don't know why I put myself through this.
Of course one can be mistaken about truth values.
However, one cannot be mistaken by holding an opinion. I can think chocolate is good, you can think it is not good, and neither of us is mistaken. This is what the Latin quote intends to convey.
You, however, hold that "Chocolate ...[text shortened]... n one of us must be mistaken. This is a consequence of you insisting that opinions are beliefs.
If your opinion is that it is true but mine is it is false - that is because the truth values are held in difference respects - with respect to you, with respect to me. So the proposition does have a specific truth value - once you know in what respect it is. Thus in opinion is the belief in the truth of a proposition that may be different in a different respect.
This is true for all propositions. Once you change the time place or respect that a proposition is true or false, then it is can no longer be used in a valid argument - you have changed the meaning of the proposition - causing ambiguity. A proposition itself is not ambiguous. The ambiguity it cause by the person changing the meaning of the proposition by changing the time, place, or respect of the proposition.
You are changing the respect which the proposition is understood by saying it is true for you and false for me. Two meaning = two propositions.
Remember - a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence.
P.S. Sorry again about hi-jacking Ivanhoe. Maybe we should "take this outside".
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiAnd mine doesn't do Coletti:
My "translator" does not do Dutch or Latin. ðŸ˜
"The ambiguity it cause by the person changing the meaning of the proposition by changing the time, place, or respect of the proposition."
"Thus in opinion is the belief in the truth of a proposition that may be different in a different respect. "
What the hell do these mean?
I thought an opinion was defined to be an unjustified belief. Now you are saying it is something entirely different. With the second mysterious sentence, are you retracting your claim that an opinion is defined to be an unjustified belief?
Originally posted by ColettiColetti: "Maybe we should "take this outside"
That why I made it clear that it has to be true or false in the same respect, time, and place.
If your opinion is that it is true but mine is it is false - that is because the truth values are held in difference respects - with respect to you, with respect to me. So the proposition does have a specific truth value - once you know in what respect it is. ...[text shortened]... sentence.
P.S. Sorry again about hi-jacking Ivanhoe. Maybe we should "take this outside".
Naah, it fits in .... more or less .... go ahead.
Originally posted by ivanhoeLet's take masturbation.
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
The vast majority of experts in sexuality say that it is a healthy, natural,
normal activity. The Roman Catholic Church says otherwise.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/sexualhealth/white-020904-masturbation.xml
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/23414/29001/266765.html?d=dmtContent
Is it reasonable for the Church to maintain this position in spite of the obvious biological
benefits (see especially the first link)? How can the Church maintain that masturbation runs
contrary to natural moral law when a baby starts playing with itself as early as 18 months
of age?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoe"The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality. "
You are mentioning it in almost every thread dealing with some aspect of the Roman-Catholic faith. As I mentioned before you can open a thread on this subject to discuss it, but this is apparently not your aim. Your aim is to hijack a thread with your constant spamming, changing the thread's subject and turning the thread into an anti-Church thread. You never discuss the thread's subject. You simply throw in your spam. It is annoying.
that's right from your opening post .
Galileo was threatened with death by fire ,just like Bruno had been executed because he wouldn't recant Copernicus. The facts are plain to see if you open your eyes.
You raise only part of the Galileo story, it's not spamming or changing the subject when I point out that the RCC is telling it's lies again.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul"he was given an examination of intention, a formal process that involved showing the accused the instruments of torture. At this proceeding, he said, "I am here to obey, and have not held this [Copernican] opinion after the determination made, as I said." "
When was Galileo threatened with torture? I believe he was threatened with excommunication, and as he was a very religious man, that could hurt, but I don't recall any torture in his story. I'm going to have to check the biography I have sitting here on the shelf.
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei