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? — Michael
why do philosophy if you've decided a priori that whatever prejudices you currently have are sufficient to refute any argument? — The Great Whatever
and open to being persuaded either way — Srap Tasmaner
My resistance to an argument or an approach is a hurdle it must clear, that's all. — Srap Tasmaner
From the OP...
The principal connection with metaphysics is via the notion of bivalence—the semantic principle that every statement is determinately true or false. If the truth of our statements depended on the obtaining of a worldy state of affairs (as the realist maintains), then our statements would have to be determinately true or false, according to whether or not that state of affairs obtained. However, given that we cannot guarantee that every statement is recognisable as true or recognisable as false, we are only entitled to this principle if our notion of truth is recognition-transcendent. By the above argument, it is not, and hence bivalence must be rejected and metaphysical anti-realism follows (Dummett 1963).
I'm fairly certain that this is close to what TGW has been arguing. — creativesoul
I thought the answers to your questions should be obvious given your example of an outside world and a simulation of it. Are the scribbles only patterns of light displayed by your screen in the simulation or in the outside world? Is your post in the outside world, or only in the simulation? In your example, is the outside world meant to represent reality as it is, and the simulation meant to represent our minds?Do I experience the scribbles as they really are? — Harry Hindu
What do you mean by "as they really are"? The scribbles are just patterns of light displayed by your screen.
If not, then am I really reading what you typed and posted to the outside world?
And what does that mean? I just press keys on my keyboard. Me pressing keys on my keyboard isn't anything like the patterns of light displayed by your screen. — Michael
So, I'm not sure how reasonable it would be to expect another person to not already have certain core thought/beliefs in place. — creativesoul
Dummett's argument concludes that the principle of bivalence be rejected based upon the notion that we cannot always recognize whether or not a statement is true/false. — creativesoul
...that's not what's being asked, tho - the demand isn't psychological but dialectical. one ought not to bring one's prejudices to bear in the discussion as to whether smth's right, unless those prejudices are specifically framed as part of the parameters of the debate. what the debater might believe for independent reasons, or for independent prejudices, can't help them in the argument, tho of course they're free to think whatever they want, as long as they don't pretend that matters for anything acc. to the debate.
One must be able to provide more than just a suspicion or a feeling that something is not right - say with Fitch's proof. Interestingly enough, this notion of what counts as sufficient reason to believe/justification is what underwrites a verification/falsification paradigm. — creativesoul
What did you just do above? — creativesoul
How is your conviction that one can avoid bringing their own worldview into a discussion — creativesoul
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.