The required info would be instances where the disagreement arises, thus revealing that different rules are/were in play. — TheMadFool
Ambiguity and vagueness seem to part of the problem too but for now I'm still in the dark as to how exactly they weigh in. — TheMadFool
guess Liebniz's law of identity would apply here viz. that indistinguishability implies identity. — TheMadFool
Oh gosh, is that my fault, for suggesting that offside is about vagueness, not induction? And you thought I meant induction is about vagueness, not the opposite? Or you thought it would be just a shame to examine induction without ambiguity and vagueness in the mix (even if that was good enough for Hume, Goodman and Kripke, and probably Wittgenstein)? And hey what about Leibniz's law too?? You want it all in the pot!!
You mad fool! — bongo fury
You can't convict Fred of murder just because the witness can't tell the difference between him and the perpetrator. Eye witnesses are known to give crap evidence. — frank
My contention is that the necessity for some alignment between different rules/definitions so that they may both apply simultaneously as in the paradox, reveals that the problem isn't catastrophic either to language or logic. — TheMadFool
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.