Are you going to continue to say that John, who is in fact a married woman, is a bachelor iff the language community incorrectly believes that John is an unmarried man? — Michael
John is a bachelor iff John is a man and John is unmarried. Whether or not John is a bachelor has nothing to do with what anyone believes about John's sex/gender or marital status; whether or not John is a bachelor depends on what the facts are. — Michael
Your entire language community, every single speaker believes John is a bachelor. So to whom are you going to use a sentence in which you use the term "John is a wife"? — Isaac
To say 'x is a y' is to say something about what it is to be an y (at the least that x is one of the sorts of thing a y is). But what it is to be a y is determined by the community for whom a y is a thing. A y is not a thing outside of a community for whom it is a relevant aspect of their life.
So John is not a bachelor by virtue of properties of John alone. He's a bachelor by virtue of a relationship between properties of John and the role of those properties in the community for whom 'John', 'bachelor', 'wife', 'married', and 'man' mean anything at all. — Isaac
So a belief that's well justified is 'true'?
Then what purpose does 'true' serve in 'Justified True Belief', that is not satisfied by 'Justified Belief'? — Isaac
They all (incorrectly) believe that John is a bachelor. I correct them to inform them that John is in fact a married woman. They thank me for correcting them. — Michael
This is contrary to your earlier claim that John is a bachelor iff the language community believes that John is a man and the language community believes that John is unmarried. — Michael
I'd interpret the claim as...
John is a bachelor iff:
1) My language community generally believe that John is a man, and
2) My language community generally believe believe that John is unmarried — Isaac
At which point it's no longer true that your entire language community believes John is a bachelor. — Isaac
But there's a problem here. Imagine Joe is part of this community and is one of the persons that have been corrected; and he was corrected today. Yesterday, Joe may very well have said, "I know John is a bachelor". You're paying heed to the fact that today, John changes his mind; he will now say: "I know John is not a bachelor". But what you're missing is that today, Joe will not say: "I knew John was a bachelor yesterday, but I was wrong", because that statement is a contradiction. The reason that statement is a contradiction is because Joe recognizes that "to know x" requires x to actually be the case. If "to know x" only required x to be believed, there would be no problem with Joe saying "I knew John was a bachelor yesterday, but I was wrong."As I've said, quite a few times now, I'm not making any claims at all about what's actually the case, only about what claims that something is the case mean, claims such as "John knows x". — Isaac
At which point it's no longer true that your entire language community believes John is a bachelor. — Isaac
I'm not making any claims at all about what's actually the case — Isaac
There's nothing more to John being a bachelor than my felicitously using the term 'bachelor'. — Isaac
As I've said, quite a few times now, I'm not making any claims at all about what's actually the case, only about what claims that something is the case mean, claims such as "John knows x". — Isaac
Joe will not say: "I knew John was a bachelor yesterday, but I was wrong", because that statement is a contradiction. The reason that statement is a contradiction is because Joe recognizes that "to know x" requires x to actually be the case. If "to know x" only required x to be believed, there would be no problem with Joe saying "I knew John was a bachelor yesterday, but I was wrong." — InPitzotl
John is not a bachelor even though the language community believes that John is an unmarried man. — Michael
You said:
There's nothing more to John being a bachelor than my felicitously using the term 'bachelor'. — Isaac
This is false. — Michael
Your speech act may imply that you believe that it is raining, and my speech act may imply that I believe that it is raining, but the shared proposition isn't "Michael believes that it is raining" (which is true iff I believe that it is raining) or "Issac believes that it is raining" (which is true iff you believe that it is raining) but is "it is raining" (which is true iff it is raining).
So despite your continued assertion, the emphasized part of "I believe that it is raining" doesn't mean the same thing as "I believe that it is raining." There's no infinite recursion going on here. The proposition "it is raining" refers to the weather, — Michael
I was referring to the meaning of the word 'bachelor'. It has no meaning beyond that which it is felicitously used for. — Isaac
Of course. The same sentence means different things in different contexts. Sometimes "I know x!" means "shut up, stop reminding me that x!" — Isaac
You're confusing what you can infer from a claim with what a claim means. It does not entail that if you can infer y from a statement x that x means y. The statement "it's raining" is talking about what's happening outside. The statement "I believe it's raining" is talking about my belief. The addition/removal of "I believe" from these statements changes the meaning.An expression like "it's raining" can be used without the prefix " I think...", or "I believe", because it's part of the language game of making claims that it's taken as given — Isaac
You're way too focused on beliefs. The statement "it's raining" is talking about what's happening outside. The gold standard for whether or not it's raining is baked into the intentionality of the claim; since the claim is describing what's happening outside, you verify it by looking outside. By contrast, "Joe believes John is a bachelor" is talking about what Joe believes of John. The gold standard for whether or not Joe believes John is a bachelor is to ask Joe.In the past one can reflect on the comparison between what one believed at the time and what one believes now, so a need for some prefix is required to distinguish which it is one means to claim. — Isaac
I don't see what's stopping us from looking out windows.Either that or this ludicrous situation where a word refers to something we can't ever ascertain... — Isaac
There's a difference between saying "a bachelor is an unmarried man because the language community uses the term 'bachelor' to refer to people they believe to be unmarried men" and saying "John is a bachelor because the language community believes that John is an unmarried man."
The former is true, the latter is not. The language community can be wrong about John. — Michael
And in the same vein, there's a difference between saying "things that are known are true and justified because the language community uses the term 'known' to refer to things they believe to be true and justified" and saying "X is known because the language community believes that X is true and justified."
Not following this at all, they seem to be on two different topics. How does this relate to what it means to say "I know X"?
— Michael
What does "x" mean in this context?
To make it simpler, let's say that sometimes "I know that it is raining!" means "shut up, stop reminding me that it is raining!" and that sometimes it means "I believe that it is raining."
What do the emphasized parts mean? Do all three emphasized parts mean the same thing? — Michael
You're confusing what you can infer from a claim with what a claim means. — InPitzotl
You're way too focused on beliefs. — InPitzotl
It's about what you would see if you look outside — InPitzotl
I don't see what's stopping us from looking out windows. — InPitzotl
I said there is nothing more to the 'meaning' of bachelor than it's felicitous use and you respond by saying the language community can be wrong about things. I don't see how the two are linked at all, you'll have to connect them up for me. — Isaac
Parts of a sentence don't have independent meanings — Isaac
You previously claimed that John is a bachelor because the language community believes that John is an unmarried man. — Michael
You said:
There's nothing more to John being a bachelor than my felicitously using the term 'bachelor'. — Isaac
This is false. — Michael
I was referring to the meaning of the word 'bachelor'. It has no meaning beyond that which it is felicitously used for. — Isaac
Yes they do. The "it is raining" part of "I believe that it is raining" has a meaning, and that meaning is different to the "it is not raining" part of "I believe that it is not raining," and both meanings are different to the "Paris is the capital city of France" part of "I believe that Paris is the capital city of France."
When I believe that it is raining, what do I believe? That it is raining. When I believe that Paris is the capital city of France, what do I believe? That Paris is the capital city of France. Beliefs have propositional content, and that propositional content can be (and is) asserted as a proposition.
The proposition "it is raining" refers to the weather. It asserts something about what is actually the case. It is true iff water is falling from the clouds and false otherwise. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that it is raining and nothing to do with whether or not you believe that it is raining and nothing to do with whether or not the language community believes that it is raining. And the same principle applies to "John is a bachelor," "the Sun orbits the Earth," and "X is true." — Michael
Your argument appears to contain the hidden and false premise that "it's raining" is used to convey to someone that the speaker believes that it's raining. The phrase "it's raining" does not require anyone to believe it beforehand to analyze its meaning or truth value. It may or may not be the case that someone believes it's raining; whether they do or don't is completely irrelevant to whether it is the case or not that it's raining (for this particular claim). What "it's raining" is used to convey is a weather condition.No, I'm arguing that what we can infer from a claim and what it means are intrinsically linked. The argument is to say that if they meant different things, then from where would a claim derive its 'meaning' if not from that which a language community can infer from its use? — Isaac
You're too focused on beliefs to analyze this properly; by which I mean you're being tunnel visioned. The fact that you've set up a scenario where the speaker believes it's raining simply reflects your bias to make the statement about beliefs. You didn't conclude that someone believes that it's raining from the statement "it's raining"; you concluded it from the fact that a person uttered that statement, and even then that is a fallible inference.Too focused for what? — Isaac
Which of the following is true at your location right now?
(1) It's snowing
(2) It's raining
(3) None of the above
It's about what you would see if you look outside — InPitzotl
Actually, yes. The problem appears to be that you're misinterpreting what I mean by saying that (A) is about what's going on outside. You appear to surmise that this means that (A) is true; but that's incorrect. What it suggests is that what's going on outside is the test of A's truth.How can it be? If (A) I say "It's raining" when (B) it isn't then (C) what you would see when you look outside is (D) {a lack of rain} so (E) the expression "it's raining" is about {a lack of rain}? — Isaac
It no more follows that (A) being about what's going on outside means that once we've looked outside it is definitely raining than it follows that a person uttering A means that they definitely believe A.So once we've looked out of the window it definitely is raining? — Isaac
Let me fix that for you: "Ascertained its veracity".Ascertained to be an independent fact. — Isaac
Then it's not raining. Unless it is. Regardless, the test of this would be to look outside. Again, it doesn't matter if this is your biased cherry picked scenario where the utterer of the statement believes it's raining, or if it is multiple choice option 2 on the quiz above. The statement is about the same thing either way.If, rather, it turns out to be someone with a hose standing on the roof, then what? — Isaac
No I didn't. — Isaac
John is a bachelor iff:
1) My language community generally believe that John is a man, and
2) My language community generally believe believe that John is unmarried — Isaac
Because...? — Isaac
What "it's raining" is used to convey is a weather condition. — InPitzotl
The fact that you've set up a scenario where the speaker believes it's raining simply reflects your bias to make the statement about beliefs. You didn't conclude that someone believes that it's raining from the statement "it's raining"; you concluded it from the fact that a person uttered that statement, and even then that is a fallible inference. — InPitzotl
(C) resulting in (D) does say something about whether (A) is true or not — InPitzotl
So once we've looked out of the window it definitely is raining? — Isaac
It no more follows that (A) being about what's going on outside means that once we've looked outside it is definitely raining than it follows that a person uttering A means that they definitely believe A. — InPitzotl
I don't see what's stopping us from looking out windows. — InPitzotl
What would you surmise option 2 in the quiz above is about? — InPitzotl
Ascertained to be an independent fact. — Isaac
Let me fix that for you: "Ascertained its veracity". — InPitzotl
Then it's not raining. Unless it is. Regardless, the test of this would be to look outside. — InPitzotl
No I didn't. — Isaac
Yes you did. Here:
John is a bachelor iff:
1) My language community generally believe that John is a man, and
2) My language community generally believe believe that John is unmarried — Isaac — Michael
I'd interpret the claim as...
John is a bachelor iff:
1) My language community generally believe that John is a man, and
2) My language community generally believe believe that John is unmarried — Isaac
I am simply informing you of how language works. — Michael
This is now the third time I've pointed out the context of that partial quote. If you don't understand, you can just ask, but please don't keep disingenuously quoting parts of what I say to make some kind of 'gotcha', it's not a level of discussion I'm interested in. — Isaac
As a simpler example:
John is a bachelor iff:
1) John is a man, and
2) John is unmarried
You want to interpret this as the claim that John is a bachelor iff:
1) I believe that John is a man, and
2) I believe that John is unmarried — Michael
I'd interpret the claim as...
John is a bachelor iff:
1) My language community generally believe that John is a man, and
2) My language community generally believe believe that John is unmarried — Isaac
There's a difference between saying "a bachelor is an unmarried man because the language community uses the term 'bachelor' to refer to people they believe to be unmarried men" and saying "John is a bachelor because the language community believes that John is an unmarried man."
The former is true, the latter is not. The language community can be wrong about John. — Michael
So you are interpreting the sentence "John is a bachelor iff John is a man and John is unmarried" as the sentence "John is a bachelor iff the language community general believe that John is a man and unmarried". — Michael
No I'm interpreting the claim "John is a bachelor iff John is a man and John is unmarried" as the claim "John is a bachelor iff the language community general believe that John is a man and unmarried" — Isaac
So you are interpreting the sentence "John is a bachelor iff John is a man and John is unmarried" as the sentence "John is a bachelor iff the language community generally believes that John is a man and unmarried". — Michael
No I'm interpreting the claim "John is a bachelor iff John is a man and John is unmarried" as the claim "John is a bachelor iff the language community general believe that John is a man and unmarried" — Isaac
As a speech act asserting that one knows X may be equivalent to asserting that one believes X, but as propositions "I believe X" is not equivalent to "I know X" — Michael
If propositions are not speech acts, then where are they used? Do we mime them? Communicate them through the means of interpretive dance? — Isaac
Given that the above are true, the following is false:
4) John is a bachelor iff the language community generally believes that John is an unmarried man — Michael
Therefore, 1) and 4) do not mean the same thing. — Michael
You are drawing a distinction between a sentence and a claim. What is the distinction? — Michael
Is the distinction such that the sentence "John is a bachelor iff John is a man and John is unmarried" doesn't mean the same thing as the sentence "John is a bachelor iff the language community generally believes that John is a man and unmarried," and that the sentence "it is raining" doesn't mean the same thing as the sentence "I believe that it is raining"? — Michael
Incidentally, this distinction you seem to be making between sentences and claims seems to be the same distinction I made earlier between propositions and speech acts that you initially denied: — Michael
What you're missing (of my interpretation) is that there's no such thing as an independent fact that john is a married woman, someone must believe John is a woman. That John is a married woman is (and only is) someone's belief, so (2) and (3) are just direct contradictions, in this context. — Isaac
We thought we knew X but we were wrong. We didn't know X because not X. — Michael
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.