True Belief and Knowledge

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

I think it is implausible. I've been reading up on dialetheism. Very exciting stuff. Not to be dismissed easily.

"this statement" (or "this proposition" refers to whatever proposition expressed by the very sentence. Do you think that is a problem? It does not seem so to me.

So, by substitution, "this proposition is false" means, ' "This proposition is false" is false'. And you claim to know what that means? Which is to ask, whether you claim to know what are its truth conditions?

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

So, by substitution, "this proposition is false" means, ' "This proposition is false" is false'. And you claim to know what that means? Which is to ask, whether you claim to know what are its truth conditions?

What kind of substitution is that?

[Reconstructo]

This sentence is a paradox.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

What kind of substitution is that?

Substituting,"this sentence is false" for, "this sentence", of course. Isn't what "this sentence" is referring to?

[Reconstructo]

Am I witnessing a logic-chopper showdown? Persuade away, my friends.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Substituting,"this sentence is false" for, "this sentence", of course. Isn't what "this sentence" is referring to?

Alright. Yes, I claim to know what that means. Banning self-reference is not very straightforward. You would have to ban sentences such as this too:

The proposition expressed by this sentence is true.

Which is not paradoxical.

And the proponent of banning self-reference have explaining to do. Why are all self-referential sentences bad? It seems to me to be overkill and ad hoc.

I don't have any preferred solution, but dialetheism is very interesting.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Emil

I meant the very same sentence. Here is a clearer example:

S. Someone believes the proposition expressed by (S) to be true.

This is true only in case someone believes it to be true. That is impossible according to what you wrote:

[...] "it never follows that because p is believed to be true that it is true."

You are talking about an ideal world with ideas... The fact is that truth as a form is also a form of relationship, and this because we learn it to share it for the benefit of others, but also must recognize the many times in history when people were asked to deny the truth in order to avoid death or remain as members of their societies... Socrates and Galileo come to mind here...Even Copenicus who dedicated the Revolution of the Spheres to the pope tiptoed into the truth, and at an advanced age where speaking the truth could not longer harm him...The truth should help all people, but what all people fear is change and nothing changes reality so quickly as the truth, and perhaps worst of all, is that our sense of truth we incorporate into our identities, so any new version of truth causes a re-examination of ourselves...

For example; I think a lot of people accept the theory of evolution as fact and go to churches that preach creationism.... They do not want to confront the contradictions but manage to wall off one version of truth from another...In Western history the dialectic which the Greeks used to determine truth- the middle ages used to resolve contradictions, especially in the Roman Law of Justinian...

Any one who dares to seek the truth should recognize the danger... We think of truth as good, but it often disrupts society and gets people killed...People can only handle a small dose at a time, so there is socially responsible truth, and there is wildly dangerous truth...Since no one can know the whole truth why make a bone of contention of it????Say something once; Why say it again???

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

Alright. Yes, I claim to know what that means. Banning self-reference is not very straightforward. You would have to ban sentences such as this too:

The proposition expressed by this sentence is true.

Which is not paradoxical.

And the proponent of banning self-reference have explaining to do. Why are all self-referential sentences bad? It seems to me to be overkill and ad hoc.

I don't have any preferred solution, but dialetheism is very interesting.

I think that sentence has no subject. (I mean, "The proposition expressed by this sentence is true.").

I did not say that all self-reference is bad. I think we have to examine the particular case.

dialetheism is very interesting.

I am sure it is. So is Spinoza.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I think that sentence has no subject. (I mean, "The proposition expressed by this sentence is true.").

I did not say that all self-reference is bad. I think we have to examine the particular case.

Alright. What makes the sentence above bad?

Presumably, the sentence expresses a proposition. You'd need to explain why it doesn't. It seems so much like other sentences that do express propositions.

I am sure it is. So is Spinoza.

Graham Priest is the most known defender of it. Maybe you should give his book a read. It's called In Contradiction.

I don't know about Spinoza. I don't read anything that old.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

Alright. What makes the sentence above bad?

Presumably, the sentence expresses a proposition. You'd need to explain why it doesn't. It seems so much like other sentences that do express propositions.



Graham Priest is the most known defender of it. Maybe you should give his book a read. It's called In Contradiction.

I don't know about Spinoza. I don't read anything that old.

I said that I don't think that sentence has a logical subject.

If I thought the sentence expressed a proposition I would not be making these objections.

I guess I should. But the belief that some contradictions are true goes against my religion (sanity).

As I pointed out with the example of Spinoza, it does not follow from the fact that something is interesting, that Emil will read it.