S's belief is not just that you were born in Germany. It is that you were not born in Germany because you were born in France.

That is not true. — creativesoul

If I believe A and B then I believe A and I believe B. Your argument seems to be that if I believe a conjunction then I don't believe each of its parts, which is false.

If I believe that you are a bachelor then I believe that you are a man and I believe that you are unmarried. To respond with "but you don't believe that I'm unmarried; you believe that I'm a bachelor" seems to me to be an unreasonable response.

If you were not born in Germany for any other reason than being born in France, then S's belief would be justified, valid, and false. — creativesoul

S's belief that I was not born in Germany is true because I was born in England.

Here I disagree. I reject the rules of entailment because, as Gettier showed, we can use them to go from a belief that cannot be true to a belief that is. Logical/valid argument/reasoning preserves truth. The rules of entailment do not. If the preservation of truth is a requirement of valid, coherent, and/or logical reasoning, then the rules of 'logical' entailment fail to satisfy that standard. — creativesoul

A entails B iff "if A then B" is true. "If A then B" can be true even if A is false. For example, "if I was born in France then I was not born in Germany" is true even though "I was born in France" is false.

1. If I was born in France then I was not born in Germany
2. You are justified in believing that I was born in France
3. Therefore, you are justified in believing that I was not born in Germany

Trying to argue that (1) is false if I was not born in France seems unreasonable. Maybe you mean to argue that (3) is an invalid inference? If so then your issue isn't with entailment but with "justificatory closure".

Although I would disagree with you. (3) appears a valid inference to me. Thalburg's objection doesn't apply to this example given that being born in France and being born in Germany are mutually exclusive, and so the conjunction "I was born in France and not born in Germany" is not less likely than the singular "I was born in France".

I think more harm is done in rejecting justificatory closure than in rejecting the JTB-definition of knowledge.

Fiat currencies are legal tender. We get paid in it, we pay our taxes in it, and I can go to the shops and buy milk with it. It's mostly stable, with any big fluctuations the result of real world economic changes.

What can you do with Bitcoin? It's just a speculative vehicle that people buy with real money in the hopes that they can sell it for even more real money, and which is ridiculously volatile, often with no rhyme or reason as to why it's perceived value changes.

I think it's foolish to think of cryptocurrencies as being a "better" currency, or a good investment. I think you need to be more honest and accept that it's just a get rich quick scheme that some get lucky with.

Well, that was the big hype period which was obviously not representative of the actual value of Bitcoin. — Tzeentch

All cryptocurrency is a big hype period. It's all a confidence scam. It has no actual value.

What makes one cryptocurrency worth what it is, or worth more than some other cryptocurrency? It's all make believe.

Down 9% on the dollar from this time last year.

Bitcoin is down 72% on the dollar from this time last year.

FIAT currency is the real confidence scam. — Tzeentch

When it's legal tender, backed by the government, it's not a confidence scam.

For one, it's a lot easier to pay for things with cryptocurrency as opposed to gold. I'd stick with Bitcoin though. — Tzeentch

I'd stick with pound sterling.

I have a stocks & shares ISA. From 31st Oct 2020 to 30th April 2022 it went up 23.65%.

This is in principle less risk because it's irrelevant what the markets do, whereas index funds will crater during recessions. — Benkei

What to Expect From Crypto in a Recession

The cryptocurrency market simply hasn't been around long enough for us to get an idea on how it behaves in a significant recession. The first cryptocurrency invented was Bitcoin (BTC -2.21%) in 2009, and much has changed since then. However, there are a handful of periods of poor economic performance in the last 13 years that we can look at to get an idea on what crypto's future might hold if a full-scale recession ensues.

One of the few periods of economic instability since 2009 occurred in 2015. After 2014, GDP grew, albeit at incrementally slower rates each quarter and eventually bottoming out at a 0.1% growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2015.

The S&P 500 also posted its first negative year since the Great Recession in 2015. During this time, the crypto asset class was utterly pummeled. The collective market cap of all cryptocurrencies fell by nearly 70% from the beginning of 2014 before hitting a low in mid-2015.

Another period of recent economic instability came in 2018. Similar to 2015, the nation's GDP grew, but by a smaller amount each quarter and eventually fell to just a 1.3% growth rate. In 2018 the S&P 500 posted its worst year since the Great Recession and lost 6% of its value.

Crypto investors who have been around since 2018 are likely aware of the woes that year brought. After peaking at roughly $750 billion, the cryptocurrency market cap tumbled and eventually fell to as low as just $107 billion, representing a catastrophic 85% decline. Bitcoin fell from about $19,000 to just above $3,000.

It's abundantly clear that during periods of slowing economic growth cryptocurrencies are not spared. In fact, they're often hit the hardest. When recession fears arise, it isn't uncommon for cryptocurrencies to lose three-quarters of their value during these times.

Cryptocurrencies are far more volatile than normal stock, and unlike normal stock have no real underlying value. It's all just a confidence scam.

I'm on a stable 9% return per year so far without leverage and trying to divine what the crypto markets are doing. The only thing I have to worry about is getting hacked since it's a live wallet. I'm holding a stable eurocoin which is used to effectively lend Hodlers euros and they pay me lots of interest for that service. Counterparty risk is managed by the platform with LTV-ratios of 50%, margin calls and automatic liquidation if people are late with posting collateral. I read a lot of complaints about people having their assets sold because they were late, which is a good indication it's working. If I could insure my wallet from getting hacked, I'd be pumping all my savings into this. — Benkei

Why not just use a normal investment rather than the cryptocurrency scam? Apparently the standard index funds have an annual return of around 10%.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is naming a special counsel to take over investigations involving Donald Trump

Attorney General Merrick Garland will appoint a special counsel to oversee criminal investigations involving former President Donald Trump, including the inquiry into his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, a senior Justice Department official said Friday.

The Justice Department official said the special counsel will also preside over key aspects of the investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

…

Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran federal prosecutor who has served since 2018 as chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague.

To say that moral claims can be true is to say that there are inherently true moral claims, claims that by definition are not supported by external evidence. Such claims are needed because extrinsic truths depend on intrinsic truths to be truths. It cannot be that the only moral claims that are truthful are those that depend on other moral claims to be true. Any moral justification that lies outside the thing itself - extrinsic morality - "x is good because it does abc and abc is good" - requires claims outside itself to be truth in order for it to be truth. This creates a never-ending chain of justifications, each new justification passing the problem onto something else. This is moral relativism and subjectivism. They are absurd, literally. — Leftist

This kind of reasoning would prima facie appear to lead to the conclusion that there are no correct legal claims. And yet it is the case that, in most countries, it is illegal to steal, to murder, etc.

Perhaps claims that some X is immoral is similar in kind to claims that some Y is illegal, albeit the "legislature" isn't some official body that follows a defined process; instead the morality of actions is developed over time by the wider community.

So not only was the DOJ starting a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign based on something that isn’t a crime, but they used the rubric set forth by the media, not law, to set it in motion. — NOS4A2

The investigation stemmed from information given to the FBI by an Australian ambassador after his meeting with one of Trump's campaign advisors.

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

But he'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire, and everyone knows that werewolves are lame.

I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law. — Michael

Actually, I misread. He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey.

Is it a “They would have” but they didn’t, sort of argument? — NOS4A2

It appears to be a "they would have were they able, but they weren't able" sort of argument.

Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.

It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources.

I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties.

The legal outcome, though, is decided by the Supreme Court, and has zero to do with party politics. — NOS4A2

I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.

Black holes are objects with an event horizon; a region within which gravity is so strong that light cannot escape.

A singularity is a region where spacetime curvature becomes infinite.

So black holes and singularities are not synonymous. But all black holes contain a singularity according to General relativity.

Assuming that we are not talking about the truth-functional definition of implication, it is clear that even if p does entail q, one is not entitled to deduce q if p is false. So the cases all fail. — Ludwig V

I don't think this adequately addresses the reasoning.

The reasoning is: if the belief that p is justified, and if p entails q, then the belief that q is justified.

For example, assume that I am justified in believing that my car is in the garage. If my car is in the garage then it entails that my car is not on the road. Therefore, I am justified in believing that my car is not on the road.

This seems a reasonable argument.

Well, there were already reports about documents related to some country's military defences and nuclear capabilities, and then a couple of days ago there was this:

Mar-a-Lago classified papers held U.S. secrets about Iran and China

Some of the classified documents recovered by the FBI from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club included highly sensitive intelligence regarding Iran and China, according to people familiar with the matter. If shared with others, the people said, such information could expose intelligence-gathering methods that the United States wants to keep hidden from the world.

At least one of the documents seized by the FBI describes Iran’s missile program, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Other documents described highly sensitive intelligence work aimed at China, they said.

Unauthorized disclosures of specific information in the documents would pose multiple risks, experts say. People aiding U.S. intelligence efforts could be endangered, and collection methods could be compromised. In addition, other countries or U.S. adversaries could retaliate against the United States for actions it has taken in secret.

Boris Johnson ‘likely to face suspension’ from Commons over partygate lies

As of last night, he was neck and neck with Rishi Sunak when it came to nominations, with a number of Tory MPs including Paul Bristow and Nadine Dorries calling for his return.

Johnson is also said to have offered an olive branch to Sunak in order to ‘join forces’.

Except he could be forced to face a by-election if he is found to have lied to Parliament and is handed a suspension for 10 or more sitting days by the privileges committee.

A committee insider told the Sun that Downing Street has handed documents, pictures and messages to the privileges committee for the investigation and that the evidence was so damning it was likely to lead to a Commons suspension.

God, imagine the Tories actually replace Truss with Boris, and then he's suspended for lying to Parliament and forced to face a by-election, probably prompting an immediate resignation. What a farce.

I'm Irish. — Baden

I remember meeting an Irish woman and asking her if she was from real Ireland or Northern Ireland. Thankfully she was from real Ireland. Probably would have been offended if she was from Northern Ireland.

They wouldn't even be the opposition at this point. :sweat: And I don't think 300+ Tories would be okay with losing their seats as they'd no longer be able to abuse the system to their own benefit.

Only a general election in the UK and a labour government down South will improve things a little for the UK. — universeness

Unfortunately with the current polling there is no chance the Tories will call for a general election. They'd become the 4th party. As much as I'd love to see it. Labour and Lib Dem as the top two parties would be so much better.

What an embarrassment if she goes. List of longest serving Prime Ministers:

He spoke to her a couple of days ago and said that the normal threshhold for a confidence vote had been passed, but because of the rules there cannot be two confidence votes within a year, but also said that if half of the Conservative MPs issued letters then they'd change the rules. Pretty crazy if she's managed that already.

Truss meeting 1922 committee chairman

Prime Minister Liz Truss is meeting Graham Brady, the chairman of the influential 1922 Committee of backbench MPs, No 10 has confirmed.

No reason has been given for why the meeting is taking place.

The 1922 Committee oversees the election of Conservative leaders.

Judge: Trump signed court document that knowingly included false voter fraud stats

“President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers ‘are true and correct’ or ‘believed to be true and correct’ to the best of his knowledge and belief,” added Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

They'll try to get Boris back in. The Conservatives are lost cause. The irony of Cameron's "chaos with Ed Miliband" remark.

Steele dossier source acquitted, in loss for special counsel Durham

So of three total indictments there were two acquitals and one plea deal with no prison time. What a pointless investigation.

Trump Was Betrayed by His Diet Coke Valet

So the Mar-a-Lago employee whose interview prompted the FBI's search warrant was the White House valet responsible from bringing Trump his drinks when he pressed the Diet Coke button.

We really do live in The Onion.

I never said it could. — NOS4A2

You said this, which seems to be a description of anarcho-capitalism:

Sure you can. Private schools, private roads, private insurance, private firefighting, private healthcare, private charity, private armies, ….the model of voluntarily exchange for such services has been in effect since time immemorial. — NOS4A2

The reality is that without some sort of centralised, democratically-elected regulator these private industries will effectively be the state by another name, making all the rules, with little to no accountability, and will likely lead to even more poverty, oppression, discrimination, and suffering.

That’s a misleading answer because it avoids the question outright and quickly enters fantasy. — NOS4A2

That anarcho-capitalism could work is the fantasy.

Why must you be governed? — NOS4A2

I think the question is misleading. You will be governed, one way or another. You're never going to get a cooperative anarchy. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos with their private militaries will just make all the rules. Anti-statism is a pipe dream.

So the only question is which kind of government is best. I would rather have a democracy than the neo-feudalism that your position would inevitably lead to.

Thanks for the clarification.

Are there any proposed experiments that could show which of locality and counterfactual definiteness is incorrect, or is it entirely dependent on an untestable interpretation?

It says in the article that their experiments showed entanglement. I thought that meant that they showed non-locality. Are you saying that entanglement under the Copenhagen interpretation can be local?

If by "real" you are referring to counterfactual definiteness then Bell's theorem says that either counterfactual definiteness or locality (no "spooky action at a distance") are false.

The Nobel Prize in Physics is being awarded this year to three scientists who have shown locality to be false.

I don't yet know of any experiments that have shown counterfactual definiteness to be false.

Unless I'm missing something no, because it's the first term plus the sum of a bunch of products, so you need a sigma not a pi. — Srap Tasmaner

Of course. Thanks for correcting me. Fixed in OP.

I've been at pains to say that we're only talking about implication not literal meaning. — Srap Tasmaner

Then I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion. Are you saying that the truth of an assertion is concerned with its implication and not its literal meaning? Such that "I am going to vote in the next election, and I believe that Joe Biden is the best candidate" is false if I'm not going to vote for Joe Biden in the next election?