Profile of Banno
Guestbook: View or sign guestbook (15)
Location: Dow nunder
Birthdate: June 22, 1919 (97 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: Jun 27, 2016 - 5:53 PM
Current Location: Moore's "here is a hand" argument
Registration Date: Aug 15, 2004
Topics Submitted: 536 topics
Total Posts: 11761 (3 per day)
Replies Received: 31185
Total Time Online: 305 days, 12 hours and 48 minutes
Most recent topics:
- Bugger perception
- Kant and Gravity Waves.
- Solipsist: this is for you.
- Notes on Donald Davidson
Most recent posts:
- And again your reply does not address my post...
- Good to see psychceramics continues to thrive hereabouts.
- Yes and no. The argument relies on one''s interlocutors recognising that the hand is a hand, and not an idea-of-hand nor a perception-of-han...
- Your argument would appear to be bullshit.
Most recent shouts:
- Banno [Mar 12, 2016 - 7:07 PM]: Sweet. It's gone from no ads to all ads.
- Banno [Mar 9, 2016 - 10:21 PM]: Happy birthday for yesterday, Tiff.
- Banno [Feb 13, 2016 - 2:05 AM]: I can ignore an ad, so if they mean the difference between a forum or no, go for it. But just dropping them over the banner is lazy.
- Banno [Dec 21, 2015 - 3:35 PM]: OK, Sir. Saw the tribute thread.
- Banno [Dec 20, 2015 - 7:25 PM]: So tell me about Mars Man...