Given all that, I'm not sure that our hypothesis makes sense, namely that there is some property of gold we are unable to learn. What would that property be like? If it's a property that has no effect at all on the way we interact with it -- say, it was God's favorite when he was creating the universe -- then obviously it can never make any difference to how we think and talk about gold. If it does show up somehow, however indirectly, why wouldn't we be able to learn this? — Srap Tasmaner
I wonder if what the author means by realism and anti-realism is different to want Dummett means. From the article, "if representationalism is rejected as incoherent or empty, the stakes in affirming either realism or antirealism go down considerably, if not completely." He understands the debate as one over whether or not sentences "represent" reality-as-such, with anti-realism treating truth as a convenient fiction, whereas Dummett turns this around into debate over whether or not truth is bivalent, and so doesn't depend on this notion of representation at all. Truth isn't a fiction under anti-realism, according to Dummett; it's just that truth-conditions are not recognition-transcendent. I think this claim is consistent with Wittgenstein's account of meaning, and even entailed by it if Dummett's argument is valid. — Michael
Do I experience the scribbles as they really are? — Harry Hindu
If not, then am I really reading what you typed and posted to the outside world?
whether you know something is in principle distinct from whether it has any effect on you – suppose god sends people to hell who waste gold, but no one knows about this. will god's unknowable attitude affect you? yes, it'll send you to hell – your ignorance doesn't change that. — The Great Whatever
I'm still not sure; it depends on how you take the connection between meaning and truth conditions. — Srap Tasmaner
Dummett never accepted Davidson's view that truth conditions give you an account or an explanation of meaning. — Srap Tasmaner
Given that the script for the next season hasn't been written, would it be correct to say that "Jon Snow will sit on the Iron Throne" has a determinant truth value? Nothing in the world satisfies the requirements to be a truth-maker (whether to make it true or to make it false). — Michael
Game of Thrones — Michael
If GRRM had that as part of his outline for how the series ends, then yes. Otherwise, the truth value becomes determinate in the future. — Marchesk
If GRRM had that as part of his outline for how the series ends, then yes. — Marchesk
making predictions among your friends or placing a wager on the outcome of the show is not the same sort of activity as stating facts — Srap Tasmaner
It still feels like a contingent matter that I don't know this, not that I am unable to. — Srap Tasmaner
whether LW's approach to meaning leads, as it did for Dummett, to some form of anti-realism. — Srap Tasmaner
construct the example such that there's no way for you to know — The Great Whatever
just imagine any situation where you can't know something, & it will still be able to affect you whether you can know it or not — The Great Whatever
I don't find Fitch's persuasive at all. — Srap Tasmaner
Does that rule out talk about the future as our example? — Srap Tasmaner
If there are or are not such possibilities, how would we figure that out? Examples don't seem to be doing the trick. — Srap Tasmaner
there's no persuasion to be done, it's a proof — The Great Whatever
if you can't imagine that there might be something you can't know, — The Great Whatever
2. I put it in the same box with the slingshot argument and Gettier cases. They're fascinating, but I am far from alone in feeling that a logical fast one is being pulled. — Srap Tasmaner
1. If you use intuitionist rules of inference and interpret the logical constants along intuitionist lines, you might be okay, as Dummett is, saying "p→~~Kp" but that's not saying "everyone is omniscient." — Srap Tasmaner
i think there's some confusion in thinking the way logical systems work is that you can simply 'choose' to use whichever system you like to validate or invalidate any proof. — The Great Whatever
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.