Which is exactly what I said... You can't know the conjunction of a&b.That's not the case. It's only the case that both KP and a&b can't obtain. a&b would be fine on its own. — Terrapin Station
This is not a solution because you change the subject. The paradox is directed at someone who believes that both a) there are unknown truths and b) all truths are knowable in principle, and the challenge is to show how both can be true at the same time.At any rate, this is easily solvable under my epistemology. There are no propositions that someone doesn't know. The idea of that is nonsensical. Propositions only obtain, and truth-value only obtains, when someone has the proposition or the truth-value judgment in mind. — Terrapin Station
Which is exactly what I said... You can't know the conjunction of a&b. — Fafner
This is not a solution because you change the subject. — Fafner
Oh I see what you mean, yes I made a mistake in my formulation, I'll fix it.You wrote: " so it follows that the conjunction of a. and b. cannot obtain." That's false. The conjunction of a and b can obtain. The conjunction of KP and a&b is what can't obtain. — Terrapin Station
As they say in the Stanford article, the paradox is interesting because (a) and (b) don't seem to be mutually inconsistent (and thus it is surprising if they are), and this is something that people who don't accept one of the premises can agree about.It's not changing the subject, it's just saying that "there are unknown truths" is false. That's the same subject. It's just disagreeing with the premise. — Terrapin Station
As they say in the Stanford article, the paradox is interesting because (a) and (b) don't seem to be mutually inconsistent (and thus it is surprising if they are) — Fafner
So, within human experience, it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true. The proposition needs to exist first. Once it is proposed, then and only then can the question of its truth be asked, and thus be put into existence, and only then, can the question be answered (or not). — Olivier5
1. All truths are knowable. — TheMadFool
Incorrect assumption. Some truths are beyond the knowability by humans, by way of complexity or escaping detection. — god must be atheist
simplification of 7 is unallowable (Incorrect, wrong) — god must be atheist
Would that make any sense though? — Olivier5
If truth must be in the form of a proposition, then there is no unknown truth because there's no such thing as a realm of already formed English sentences waiting to be discovered. A proposition must be proposed by someone before it can exist. — Olivier5
It has to if you're right. — TheMadFool
All truths are propositions [you disagree but haven't been able to make your case] — TheMadFool
All truths are known. — TheMadFool
Nope. The procedure only makes sense if truth can only be expressed in words. It's begging the question. — Olivier5
You haven't been able to make yours either. — Olivier5
Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1] In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences. — Wikipedia
Name a truth that's not propositional. We're going round in circles. — 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.