The legal outcome, though, is decided by the Supreme Court, and has zero to do with party politics. — NOS4A2

I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.

Black holes are objects with an event horizon; a region within which gravity is so strong that light cannot escape.

A singularity is a region where spacetime curvature becomes infinite.

So black holes and singularities are not synonymous. But all black holes contain a singularity according to General relativity.

Assuming that we are not talking about the truth-functional definition of implication, it is clear that even if p does entail q, one is not entitled to deduce q if p is false. So the cases all fail. — Ludwig V

I don't think this adequately addresses the reasoning.

The reasoning is: if the belief that p is justified, and if p entails q, then the belief that q is justified.

For example, assume that I am justified in believing that my car is in the garage. If my car is in the garage then it entails that my car is not on the road. Therefore, I am justified in believing that my car is not on the road.

This seems a reasonable argument.

Well, there were already reports about documents related to some country's military defences and nuclear capabilities, and then a couple of days ago there was this:

Mar-a-Lago classified papers held U.S. secrets about Iran and China

Some of the classified documents recovered by the FBI from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club included highly sensitive intelligence regarding Iran and China, according to people familiar with the matter. If shared with others, the people said, such information could expose intelligence-gathering methods that the United States wants to keep hidden from the world.

At least one of the documents seized by the FBI describes Iran’s missile program, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Other documents described highly sensitive intelligence work aimed at China, they said.

Unauthorized disclosures of specific information in the documents would pose multiple risks, experts say. People aiding U.S. intelligence efforts could be endangered, and collection methods could be compromised. In addition, other countries or U.S. adversaries could retaliate against the United States for actions it has taken in secret.

Boris Johnson ‘likely to face suspension’ from Commons over partygate lies

As of last night, he was neck and neck with Rishi Sunak when it came to nominations, with a number of Tory MPs including Paul Bristow and Nadine Dorries calling for his return.

Johnson is also said to have offered an olive branch to Sunak in order to ‘join forces’.

Except he could be forced to face a by-election if he is found to have lied to Parliament and is handed a suspension for 10 or more sitting days by the privileges committee.

A committee insider told the Sun that Downing Street has handed documents, pictures and messages to the privileges committee for the investigation and that the evidence was so damning it was likely to lead to a Commons suspension.

God, imagine the Tories actually replace Truss with Boris, and then he's suspended for lying to Parliament and forced to face a by-election, probably prompting an immediate resignation. What a farce.

I'm Irish. — Baden

I remember meeting an Irish woman and asking her if she was from real Ireland or Northern Ireland. Thankfully she was from real Ireland. Probably would have been offended if she was from Northern Ireland.

They wouldn't even be the opposition at this point. :sweat: And I don't think 300+ Tories would be okay with losing their seats as they'd no longer be able to abuse the system to their own benefit.

Only a general election in the UK and a labour government down South will improve things a little for the UK. — universeness

Unfortunately with the current polling there is no chance the Tories will call for a general election. They'd become the 4th party. As much as I'd love to see it. Labour and Lib Dem as the top two parties would be so much better.

What an embarrassment if she goes. List of longest serving Prime Ministers:

He spoke to her a couple of days ago and said that the normal threshhold for a confidence vote had been passed, but because of the rules there cannot be two confidence votes within a year, but also said that if half of the Conservative MPs issued letters then they'd change the rules. Pretty crazy if she's managed that already.

Truss meeting 1922 committee chairman

Prime Minister Liz Truss is meeting Graham Brady, the chairman of the influential 1922 Committee of backbench MPs, No 10 has confirmed.

No reason has been given for why the meeting is taking place.

The 1922 Committee oversees the election of Conservative leaders.

Judge: Trump signed court document that knowingly included false voter fraud stats

“President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers ‘are true and correct’ or ‘believed to be true and correct’ to the best of his knowledge and belief,” added Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

They'll try to get Boris back in. The Conservatives are lost cause. The irony of Cameron's "chaos with Ed Miliband" remark.

Steele dossier source acquitted, in loss for special counsel Durham

So of three total indictments there were two acquitals and one plea deal with no prison time. What a pointless investigation.

Trump Was Betrayed by His Diet Coke Valet

So the Mar-a-Lago employee whose interview prompted the FBI's search warrant was the White House valet responsible from bringing Trump his drinks when he pressed the Diet Coke button.

We really do live in The Onion.

I never said it could. — NOS4A2

You said this, which seems to be a description of anarcho-capitalism:

Sure you can. Private schools, private roads, private insurance, private firefighting, private healthcare, private charity, private armies, ….the model of voluntarily exchange for such services has been in effect since time immemorial. — NOS4A2

The reality is that without some sort of centralised, democratically-elected regulator these private industries will effectively be the state by another name, making all the rules, with little to no accountability, and will likely lead to even more poverty, oppression, discrimination, and suffering.

That’s a misleading answer because it avoids the question outright and quickly enters fantasy. — NOS4A2

That anarcho-capitalism could work is the fantasy.

Why must you be governed? — NOS4A2

I think the question is misleading. You will be governed, one way or another. You're never going to get a cooperative anarchy. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos with their private militaries will just make all the rules. Anti-statism is a pipe dream.

So the only question is which kind of government is best. I would rather have a democracy than the neo-feudalism that your position would inevitably lead to.

Thanks for the clarification.

Are there any proposed experiments that could show which of locality and counterfactual definiteness is incorrect, or is it entirely dependent on an untestable interpretation?

It says in the article that their experiments showed entanglement. I thought that meant that they showed non-locality. Are you saying that entanglement under the Copenhagen interpretation can be local?

If by "real" you are referring to counterfactual definiteness then Bell's theorem says that either counterfactual definiteness or locality (no "spooky action at a distance") are false.

The Nobel Prize in Physics is being awarded this year to three scientists who have shown locality to be false.

I don't yet know of any experiments that have shown counterfactual definiteness to be false.

Unless I'm missing something no, because it's the first term plus the sum of a bunch of products, so you need a sigma not a pi. — Srap Tasmaner

Of course. Thanks for correcting me. Fixed in OP.

I've been at pains to say that we're only talking about implication not literal meaning. — Srap Tasmaner

Then I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion. Are you saying that the truth of an assertion is concerned with its implication and not its literal meaning? Such that "I am going to vote in the next election, and I believe that Joe Biden is the best candidate" is false if I'm not going to vote for Joe Biden in the next election?

I believe he's referring to this.

Leading counterintelligence officials issued a memo to all of the CIA’s global stations saying that a concerning number of U.S. informants were being captured and executed.

The CIA’s counterintelligence mission center investigated dozens of incidents in the last few years that involved killings, arrests or compromises of foreign informants. In an unusual move, the message sent via a top secret cable included the specific number of agents killed by other intelligence agencies, according to The New York Times.

Officials said that level of detail is a sign of the significance of the cable. Announcing the specific number of killings is rare as that figure is typically held under wraps from the public and even from some CIA employees, the Times noted.

The cable, which also cited the issue of putting “mission over security,” comes amid recent efforts by countries like Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan to find CIA informants and turn them into double agents, the Times reported.

The memo also noted long standing issues like placing too much trust in sources, a speedy recruiting process and inadequate attention to potential intelligence risks among other problems.

The uptick in compromised informants highlights the more sophisticated ways in which foreign intelligence agencies are tracking the CIA’s actions. These mechanisms include artificial intelligence, facial recognition tools and other hacking methods, per the Times.

The New York Times also reported that CIA case officers were sometimes promoted for recruiting spies often regardless of the success, performance or quality of that spy.

“No one at the end of the day is being held responsible when things go south with an agent,” Douglas London, a former CIA operative who was unaware of the cable, said to the Times. “Sometimes there are things beyond our control but there are also occasions of sloppiness and neglect and people in senior positions are never held responsible.”

People who have read the cable added that it was intended for the officers who are most directly involved in enlisting and vetting potential new informants, the Times reported.

The CIA declined to comment on the matter.

@creativesoul wasn't quite accurate in saying that it's "since Trump left office". Rather it's "in the last few years". And it's not American agents, but agents working for America.

@Srap Tasmaner

Consider this exchange:

John: The book is in my room
Jane: What you say is wrong because the book is not in your room

Should this be interpreted as the below?

John: I believe that the book is in my room
Jane: I believe that what you say is wrong because the book is not in your room

So Jane believes that John doesn't believe that the book is in his room because the book isn't in his room? That doesn't seem right.

Even if John's assertion that the book is in his room implies that he believes that the book is in his room, his assertion being true or false has nothing to do with what he believes (or what Jane believes), and everything to do with whether or not the book is in his room.

If I candidly assert an indicative sentence, I imply that the content of my belief is represented by that sentence — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, you imply it. But that asserting a sentence implies something isn't that that sentence (or assertion) means that thing. The sentence (even as an assertion) "I am going to vote in the next election, and I believe that Joe Biden is the best candidate" implies that I am going to vote for Joe Biden in the next election, but that's not what the sentence means.

This is where I think you're conflating different senses of "meaning" or "expression". I can assert something that expresses my anger or my love or my disapproval, but that's not the same thing as the assertion meaning "I am angry" or "I love you" or "I disapprove of this".

You can't assert that the book is in your room, or that you believe the book is in your room, and that it is not true that the book is in your room. — Srap Tasmaner

Sure I can: I believe that the book is in my room but the book isn't in my room. I can assert anything I like.

But I don't really see the relevance of this. If we accept that we are fallible then what left is there to discuss? We accept the distinction between truth and belief; between the book being in my room and believing that the book is in my room.

Or an assertoric utterance of "The book is in Michael's room." — Srap Tasmaner

Again, I think this is ambiguous. I think you're conflating two different senses of "meaning". I'm concerned with meaning in the sense of definition. "I believe that the book is in my room" and "the book is in my room" do not share a definition.

Otherwise how do you make sense of the "the book is in my room" part of "I believe that the book is in my room"? The latter isn't to be interpreted as "I believe that I believe that the book is in my room".

I think you're just taking meaning-as-use to an irrational extreme.

But you have no way of saying this as a report of your beliefs. — Srap Tasmaner

I thought I just did? "It can be true that I believe something even if what I believe is false" is something I believe. Or, more succinctly, "I am fallible".

(1) If you want to convey your honest belief that the book is in Michael's room, the words you choose to express that belief are "The book is in Michael's room."
(2) You choose those words because the literal (or conventional) meaning of that sentence represents your belief accurately. — Srap Tasmaner

I think this is ambiguous. The meaning of the sentence is what you believe, but it isn't that you believe it. The sentence that expresses that you believe it is "I believe that the book is in my room".

And, of course, it can be true that I believe something even if what I believe is false. @Metaphysician Undercover appears to conflate these.

Look at the T-schema discussed earlier by Banno. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK.

"The book is in my room" is true iff the book is in my room.

Notice that it isn't:

"The book is in my room" is true iff I believe that the book is in my room.

Therefore, your claims that the meaning of "the book is in my room" has something to do with what I believe, or that truth is honesty, are false.

I can honestly claim "the book is in my room" if I believe that the book is in my room, but if the book isn't in my room then my claim is false.

This is how almost everyone understands truth. It's the common use. Your use is uncommon. You have presented no adequate evidence or reasoning to support your use.

"The book is in my room" is true iff the book is in my room. In this example, "the book is in my room" only means that the book is in my room, if the statement is true. In other instances "the book is in my room" means something else. — Metaphysician Undercover

You appear to be equivocating on the meaning of "means". We're using it in the sense of a definition, not in the sense of entailment.

The T-schema doesn't say that asserting the proposition "the book is in my room" entails that the book is in my room. It only says that the book being in my room is the truth-condition of the proposition "the book is in my room", and according to Davidson the definition of a proposition is given by its truth-conditions.

I could state "I believe that the book is in my room" even when I don't believe that the book is in my room. Therefore, according to your reasoning, "I believe that the book is in my room" means something other than that I believe that the book is in my room. Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

That I can assert a falsehood isn't that it doesn't mean precisely what it says.

The fact that you understand the notion of dishonety proves that you understand the difference between the meaning of an assertion and the beliefs of the person making the assertion.

Since it is very obvious that you could state "the book is in my room" when the book is not in your room, then it is also very obvious that "the book is in my room" means something other than that the book is in your room. Do you not agree with this? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I don't. It's a nonsensical inference.

Since the meaning concerns what you believe... — Metaphysician Undercover

Given that "I believe that the book is in my room, therefore the book is in my room" is invalid, "I believe that the book is in my room" doesn't mean "the book is in my room".

The meaning of "the book is in my room" doesn't concern what I believe.

It wouldn't hurt to distinguish the epistemic and alethic modalities now and then. — Srap Tasmaner

Not sure if it matters in this instance. Whether we're considering epistemic or alethic modality, if something is true then it is possible.

What you don't seem to understand MIchael, is that whether or not the book is actually in your room is completely irrelevant here. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it isn't. It's the only thing that's relevant. We're concenred with truth, not belief.

Whether or not the book is actually in my room has nothing to do with what I believe. I don't know where the book is so I say "the book is possibly in my room", but as a matter of fact, distinct from my belief, the book is actually in my room.

The book doesn't just cease to exist, or fail to have a location, simply because I don't know where it is.

When you say that the book is possibly in your room, you imply that the book may be elsewhere. — Metaphysician Undercover

But I'm not implying that the book isn't actually in my room.

This is because the two concepts are mutually exclusive, inconsistent with one another, such that if something is truthfully said to be possible, it cannot at the same time be truthfully said to be actual. That's what I explained to say one when you believe the other, is to be dishonest. — Metaphysician Undercover

The former, as I explained — Metaphysician Undercover

So you're saying that if the book is possibly in my room then it isn't actually in my room, and so if I tell you that the book is possibly in my room then you know to not look in my room.

Clearly this is opposed to common use.

You misquoted me. I said "non-actual". — Metaphysician Undercover

So what's the difference between "not actual" and "non-actual"? What's the difference between "not human" and "non-human"?

That aside, either if something is possible then it isn't actual or something can be both possible and actual. So which is it?

"Possible" refers to what may or may not be. "Actual" refers to what is and is not. If you say that the book is possibly in your room, then you are saying that it may or may not be in your room. This is logically distinct from saying that it actually is in your room, or actually is not, according to the definitions. Therefore the conclusion I stated is sound. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not it isn't.

There's a difference between saying "possible" doesn't mean "actual" and saying "possible" means "not actual".

You asserted the latter, which is false.

I suppose some is kept in the bank, some given as dividends to shareholders, and some invested into the stock market.

None of this is really of any use or benefit to anyone except the rich playing their game of buying shares from one another.