Profile of Banno
Guestbook: View or sign guestbook (15)
Location: Dow nunder
Birthdate: June 22, 1919 (96 years old)
Biography: Here's how it works, folks; I said I would only say it once, then spent ten minutes looking for it. S0 I am putting it here, so it does not get lost.
Strings of words, involving predication and names and such. There are rules for constructing them, but again, as a competent user of English, you don't really need them.
Being true is what statements are supposed to do. Truth is unanalysable, because if you present a theory of truth, then some smart arse will ask you if it is true; and you are faced either with circularity or dogma. It is also redundant, because "P" is true if and only if P; "P is true" and "P" say the very same thing. You know what truth is, because as a competent speaker - and writer - of English, you can use the word accurately. That's about all there is to it. Notice that it is statements that are true.
When a statement is taken to be true, we say it is believed. Beliefs do not need to be explicit - you believe you have legs when you stand up, usually without checking the they are there. Notice that one can believe things, whether they are true or not.
This is something you can do with statements - an act performed by a speaker. It has a meaning something lie "Trust me on this; it is true that...". Again, one can assert things that are true, or that are not true; but at risk of one's reputation as a speaker of truth.
A necessary condition for P justifying Q is that P ⊃ Q; and I mean the truth functional operator. The success criteria for a justification is not that it is true, but that it is convincing.
Knowledge (knowing that...)
You know something when it is true, when it is implied by other truths, and you believe it.
There was a bit of a skirmish about the details, but this will do for most circumstances not involving barns or scarecrows.
Knowledge (Knowing how...)
You can also know how to do things. In this case, you demonstrate your knowledge by your acts, not by justifying you belief in a truth.
Something is certain when it is not appropriate to doubt it. That the bishop moves diagonally in chess is certain. To be certain is to be beyond doubt.
Banno's Membership Status
Last seen: Nov 25, 2015 - 3:51 AM
Registration Date: Aug 15, 2004
Topics Submitted: 495 topics
Total Posts: 10893 (3 per day)
Replies Received: 28239
Total Time Online: 294 days, 20 hours and 13 minutes
Most recent topics:
- Truth and Meaning 3
- The necessity of Female Emaciation
- The uncertainty principle and the excluded middle
- It's all Quantum.
Most recent posts:
- Consider the following link before giving consideration to this "debate": forums.philosophyforums.com...ndpost=1314626#post1314626
- :) been there, Sam.
- Well, let's try A different approach. Do you recognise that there are such things as hallucinations?
- Then how do you avoid solipsism? Or don't you bother?
- perhaps, if there is only one observer. How do you recognise that you have had an hallucination?
Most recent shouts:
- Banno [Dec 29, 2014 - 7:25 PM]: Good point. Were is Tullius?
- Banno [Dec 17, 2014 - 5:15 AM]: Shoutbox. Haven't used it for a long bit.
- Banno [Nov 1, 2014 - 4:39 AM]: Anyone heard from Gram?
- Banno [Nov 1, 2014 - 4:39 AM]: Happy birthday Bitter.
- Banno [Jun 9, 2014 - 6:44 AM]: take care.