I don't think a document that protects minority rights is a bad thing. Have you seen what these people are voting for?

In the UK people have voted for a 165% increase in homelessness (this figure is pre-pandemic), around 30,000 deaths per year due to NHS cuts according to The Royal Society of Medicine (again, pre pandemic), and case examples of people literally starving to death after having their state benefits terminated (around 70% of these decisions get overturned on appeal to a judge). A more obvious example is Nazi Germany. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's too bad. I guess the poor, the sick, the minorities in modern democracies are what the slaves, women, children were in Athenian democracy. Sidelined, brushed aside.

Your turn. — Caldwell

I resigned the game! :grin:

Secondly monarchy came before democracy and BOTH FAILED — Nickolasgaspar

To the extent that I'm aware democracy didn't fail. Monarchy failed because of inherent flaws in such a mode of governance (tryanny-prone). Democracy, on the other hand, has no innate flaws that could cause its own downfall.

scientific "dictatorship" — Nickolasgaspar

I guess you're offering us a variation of Socrates' idea of philosopher kings. There are risks in such a political system, no? How can we be certain that a scientific dictatorship won't devolve into just dictatorship with all the abuses of power that come with it?

Why do so many people believe in miracles and the supernatural?
— TheMadFool
Making up shit (i.e. believing) is a lot easier and safer than rigorously observing, experimentally testing and peer reviewing (i.e. knowing).

... religious people and scientists both are on a quest for miracles.
Maybe that's true for 'religious scientists' ... In the main, however, scientific practices are driven by (re)search for interesting, unsolved problems (more difficult and greater scope, the better) and not impossible-to-solve, inexplicable "miracles". C'mon, Fool. :roll: — 180 Proof

Miracles are, what they really are, basically inconsistencies (events like the resurrection of Jesus) with respect to an accepted model a reality (the dead stay dead). In other words, we have a well-tested theory that is challenged by phenomena the religiously-inclined call miracles.

The meat and potatoes of science are theories and true to Karl Popper's claims scientists, at least those who have a media presence like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss et al, make it a point to let us know that they're interested in disproving established theories. Disproving scientfic theories is essentially a search for counterexamples, inconsistencies between theory and observation.

In that both religious people and scientisits are on the look out for inconsistencies, miracles in the case of the former and disconfirming evidence in the latter, they're very much like each other.

We can make the reasoning involved explicit thus:

Religion

Theory: No god
Observation: Miracles (clashes with no god theory)
Revision of theory: Yes god

Science

Theory: Yes ether (medium for light)
Observation: No ether drag (conflicts with ether theory)
Revision of theory: No ether

parliament — Down The Rabbit Hole

Senate in USA.

These bodies seem to be relics of the past. Back when democracy was born (508 BC, Cleisthenes) the population of Athens was small, plus only a certain section of the citizenry were enfranchised. In a sense every person had a say in government.

When democracy returned to the political scene - after our experiment with monarchy apparently failed - there were just too many people and to get every person involved in all decisions of a country was nigh impossible. Hence, parliaments and senates were created (representative/indirect democracy) to overcome that obstacle to rule by the people - a one time general election was affordable & doable but putting all national issues to vote by all the people, referendum-like, was not.

Much has changed since then. This is the electronic age, everyone has a cellphone these days. We need to return to the original, direct democracy. It's feasible now - I've seen people vote for their favorite American Idol using nothing but their cellphone's messaging app. Indirect/representative democracy's days are over, it was simply an interim measure that had to be adopted because of practical limitations (no easy way all the people could vote on issues back before we had cellphones).

Who does a constitution serve? The people - protects their freedom and enables their pursuit of happiness. Once direct democracy is reestablished. the constitution becomes more of burden - extra time & energy will be needed for the steps a country has to make/take in order for their votes to do what they're supposed to do viz. steer the nation towards the achievement of wholesome goals.

The key is to remember that a statement not in existence cannot be true or false. It needs to exist first. i.e. be stated. Then and only then can it be assigned a truth value. — Olivier5

$p \rightarrow Kp$

p = a true proposition

Kp = p is known

I'm afraid, you'll have to figure this out for yourself. Good luck.

No, it does not. An unproposed statement cannot be a proposition; at best it is an unproposition. — Olivier5

p = a proposition (truth is implied)
Kp = p is known

Let's go over this together. The conclusion of Fitch's argument in formal logic is: $p \rightarrow Kp$ which in plain English means: all true propositions are known propositions. In other words, all true propositions exist as fully formulated propositions in some mind capable of making propositions and they are known to be true.

The set of true propositions = The set of made propositions.

If it's ok to step on and snuff out bugs, is it ok if giants step on and snuff us (humans) out?

Accept defeat = Resign

Acceptance is a choice. Resignation is giving up. — Caldwell

Go on...

We have already been through this. Whilst an Ai can be programmed , and an elephant taught to create a repetitive picture, they neither choose to do so, nor do they deem it to be art in the human tradition — Pop

Your definition does not include the elements of choice and belief that something is art and if it did, then we're in territories that seem alien to art (choice) and arbitrary (if I deem this :point: * is art then it is).

I dunno!

Right. But if truth can only be propositional, then the Fitch is a non starter. Propositions need to be proposed before they can be true or not true. An unknown proposition does not exist. — Olivier5

S1 = {x: x is a true proposition} = Set S1 is the set of all possible true propositions.

S1 contains those propositions that have already been made and those that are yet to be made.

S2 = {x: x is a true proposition that's already made} = Set S2 is the set of already made true propositions.

Fitch's argument is made with set S1 in mind. In fact, according to Fitch, S1 = S2. There can be no true proposition that's such that it is unknown; in other words, every true proposition is already made and known.

Technically, you don't need to be an American republican to be a cretin (though it helps). — Olivier5

:lol: I don't need help being a cretin. I can do it all by myself.

Funny.

This can only be proven by an example. And if I know the example, then it is impossible to use that example.

On the other hand, without proof it is acceptable, that the human mind is only capable of some complexity but not of all complexity. For instance, religionists will tell you that god is so complex, that we can't fathom his thoughts. This is an example which has no proof value, but enough creative force to make you see the point.

The escaping from detection is easier to see. We sense the world and create our thoughts based on our senses. For truth we have to rely on a model of the world which model we built relying on our senses. However, we can't trust our senses. Maybe they relate to use reality, maybe they don't. Thus, all the knowledge and truth we have accumulated about the world and its truhts, may be misguided, and completely off. Again, how does one prove this? It is completely unprovable but totally conceivable. — god must be atheist

When we talk about truths. there has to be something which is about reality, that something then checked if it corresponds to reality - if it does, that something is said to be true or is a truth.

With propositions, we have that something viz. propositions.

If someone claims truths can be nonpropositional, I'm at a loss as to what it is (the something) that can be true. — TheMadFool

Anti-realism seems to have skepticism as a starting point:

Assume nothing, question everything. — James Patterson, Cat & Mouse (Alex Cross, #4)

What's the assumption made by realism? That there's an objective, mind-independent world out there to which what we say corresponds to i.e. realism is, inter alia, about the correspondence theory of truth.

Anti-realism then needs another theory of truth: truth is that which is logically proven.

6. Know p is true & Know p is unknown [possible if 3/5]

7. Know p is true [from 6 Simplification]
— TheMadFool

7 is invalid reasoning, because you drop off an assumption that can't be dropped. You use the effect of this "drop" in the argument later. However, the knowledge that p is true, does not affect whatsoever the fact that p is not known. The two are independent. Not related, yet both apply. Therefore you can't drop one of the two (and you also can't drop both of them). — god must be atheist

So you have complaints about the natural deduction rule simplification. Care to expand on that a bit.

1. The sun is hot & Grass is green.

Ergo,

2. The sun is hot. [1 Simplification]

Now,

3. Know p is true & Known p is unknown

Ergo,

4. Know p is true [3 Simplification]

If I name it, I make it propositional. But okay, maybe you are right. Truth are description, therefore there is not such thing as an unknown truth. — Olivier5

When we talk about truths. there has to be something which is about reality, that something then checked if it corresponds to reality - if it does, that something is said to be true or is a truth.

With propositions, we have that something viz. propositions.

If someone claims truths can be nonpropositional, I'm at a loss as to what it is (the something) that can be true.

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

You haven't been able to make yours either. — Olivier5

Name a truth that's not propositional. We're going round in circles.

Nope. The procedure only makes sense if truth can only be expressed in words. It's begging the question. — Olivier5

You denied that truth has to be propositional. I asked you to prove it. You said a picture would do the trick. I pointed out that every object in the picture you posted has a word assigned to it - demonstrating my position on the issue or, as it matters to you, disproving your assertion that truth can be non-propositional.

In short, I refuted your argument because I assumed your position not mine. So, if there's any petitio principii, it's not me.

Would that make any sense though? — Olivier5

It has to if you're right.

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

1. All truths are propositions [you disagree but haven't been able to make your case]
2. All propositions are known [Fitch's argument]
Ergo,
3. All truths are known. [from 1, 2]

Here's an exercise for you: Erase every object in the picture that has a word for it. What are you left with?

Being reluctantly accepting of everything is painful.
Being neutrally accepting of everything is emotionally pointless.
Being cheerfully or gratefully accepting of everything is an end in itself. — Yohan

Cheer doesn't have to factor into it. — Yohan

:chin:

Whatever — 180 Proof

:lol: I've always wanted to say "whatever!" I've never been in a situation where I felt "whatever!" was appropriate. I'm not happy, not happy at all!

That is a good point. Why is it that all the justification hinges on only one trait [rhetorical]? — Pinprick

The problem is when one takes traits that distinguish animals from humans one by one, we're sidetracked by the traits that we've failed to remove from the analysis - notice how we're talking about humans and how we might be justified in killing 'em given a trait that satisfies the conditions stipulated by the name the trait argument. No single trait may suffice to put the required distance between a human and, say, a cow (beef) to allow differential treatment. We need to take into account the entire trait set that defines humans and animals. Consider the simple example where the word "dog" represents animals and the word "cat" represents humans. So, one human is cat and another human too is cat. If I substitute "c" with "d" in one human, we get dat but dat still has something human, "at". Now, so long as you view the traits of animals (d-o-g) one at a time, there'll always be some human trait (c or a or t) to gum up the works. Only when you take all of the traits together as in dog or cat, will the two be distinct enough to require differential treatment.

Incorrect assumption. Some truths are beyond the knowability by humans, by way of complexity or escaping detection. — god must be atheist

Prove it!

simplification of 7 is unallowable (Incorrect, wrong) — god must be atheist

Why?

Does it make sense to desire impossible things?
— TheMadFool
In activist (agonist) politics it's said: "Be realistic, demand the impossible!" :victory: :mask:

I think I get it now.
Perhaps this:
• acceptance = affirm that X is best / least bad of alternatives;
• resignation = deny that there are any alternatives to X. — 180 Proof

My interpretation:

1. Acceptance: No options. I don't mind it.

2. Resignation: No options. I mind it, I hate it.

What prevents people from being wise enough to learn from others? — Athena

I dunno! Maybe something about vicarious suffering à la Jesus. Did we learn anything from Jesus (Christianity/religion)?

By showing it. — Olivier5

Do it then. Post a picture and show me a truth.

Since the world can be neatly carved up between seller and buyer, both will starve - one can't buy food, the other can't sell food to get money with which to buy food.

The ideal would be to accept everything cheerfully. — Yohan

Why?

The Coronavirus-Social Distancing Paradox

The coronavirus has spread across the world, over distances spanning thousands of kilometers but according to experts a 2 meter/0.002 kilometers distance will prevent transmission between people. :chin:

A picture could carry some truth for instance. — Olivier5

How?

Final Version Of Fitch's Paradox, From Wikipedia

1. All truths are knowable

2. p & ~Kp = F = there's an unknown truth

3. F is knowable [from 1]

4. K(p & ~Kp) [assume for reductio ad absurdum, from 3]

5. Kp & K~Kp [knowing a conjunction implies knowing the conjuncts]

6. Kp [from 5 Simp]

7. K~Kp [from 5 Simp]

8. ~Kp [Kq implies q]

9. Kp & ~Kp [6, 8 Conj]

10. ~K(p & ~Kp) [4 - 9 reductio ad absurdum]

11. ~LK(p & ~Kp) [from 10, ~Kq implies ~LKp]

12. p & ~Kp [assume "there's an unknown truth" for reductio ad absurdum]

13. LK(p & ~Kp) [from 12, 1]

14. LK(p & ~Kp) & ~LK(p & ~Kp) [11, 13 Conj]

15. ~(p & ~Kp) ["there's no unknown truth" 12 - 14 reductio ad absurdum]

16. ~p v ~~Kp [15 DeM]

17. ~p v Kp [16 DN]

18. p -> Kp [17 Imp]

19. If a proposition (p) then p is known

Legend:

L = possible
K = know
Kp = known p

To accept & to resign, to use a chess analogy, seems to be aware of what pieces are still in the game, where they are, then to strategize for a win/draw/stalemate & to realize that checkmate is a foregone conclusion, there being no point playing any further respectively.

Fair enough I guess. — Yohan

Yep!

A truth is not necessarily a proposition — Olivier5

An example!

I have no quarrel with the above post. — Sam26

:ok:

You can accept things that are hard to accept. Cheer doesn't have to factor into it. — Yohan

You mean to say that a person, the sage obviously, who accepts truths/facts doesn't gain happiness/pleasure/contentment from it?

From google definitions:
begrudgingly: reluctantly or resentfully.
"he somewhat begrudgingly accepted a reduced role for the better of the team" (Google's example sentence. Underline added)

Resign: accept that something undesirable cannot be avoided.
synonyms: reconcile oneself.
I don't like that I will have to die some day. But I don't begrudge the fact. Its a neutral word, though its application is to undesirables. — Yohan

Word play, my friend. Not interested. It's clear that resignation is not a desirable state of affairs, hence, begrudginly accept one's circumstances (I don't like it but I have no choice).

The implications of a private language are what's important. One view on language is that people's minds are distinct in terms of the referent for words. So, the word "water" refers to A in one person's mind and B in another person's mind. Yet, the two of them use the word "water" in a conversation as if $A = B$ when the fact is $A \neq B$.

In short, everyone is talking to each other in their own private language. What would follow if this were true? Firstly, it's plain as the nose on my face that we would be talking past each other. What then? Confusion of course but of a rather insiduous and pernicuous kind. For instance, my God is different from your God but because both use the same word, "God", it gives us the false impression that we're talking about the same thing (same referent). Thus philosophers caution that before you engage in debate, define your terms. This simple but essential first step in a philosophical debate is an acknowledgement of the possibility that each and everyone has and uses a private language.

Unless, we're on the same page - working with words whose definitions are mutually intelligible - no discussion should even begin lest we waste precious time and energy.

Wittgenstein claims private languages even if one attempts to create one will be not only incomprehensible to another person but also can't be understood by the private linguist faerself.

Thus the above view of language collapses. It can't be the case that the word "water" means A to one person and B to another (private meanings for words like "water" can't be used in ways consistent enough to make private languages possible). If so, language must be about what can be put in the public domain i.e. language is a social entity, dealing only in matters that can be shared.