It's confusing me too. :lol:

The realist does commit as you've said they would (and as I've bolded). The realist defines the ship as the specific matter that was there originally because he's offering a metaphysical definition within the context of that conversation. That is, the ship is exactly what it is. — Hanover

This "metaphysical definition" is useless then. The ship becomes a new ship every instant, atoms rubbing off in the wind or water, electrons absorbing photons from the Sun, etc. And it's still not entirely clear which material stuff is referred to when you talk about "the ship" in this metaphysical sense; there's no objective cut-off point that says that this particle is part of the ship and this particle is just passing by.

In the vernacular however, "the ship" is a social construct, subject to whatever definition the speakers want it to have. We call it the same boat because it maintained a sense of apparent identity through time and continued its same function. Regardless of why we keep calling it the same name has no metaphysical impact. We're just identifying something consistently because we happen not to care what its material composition is through time for our definitional purposes.

And the anti-realist will say that this is how our everyday conversions work. The anti-realist's position is an accurate representation of truth and statements as we ordinarily use them and the world as we ordinarily understand it.

It's not about whether or not we call the ship "Theseus". It's about whether or not "the ship that leaves is the ship that returns" is true, and what makes it true. There's the vacuous answer that "the ship that leaves is the ship that returns" is true iff the ship that leaves is the ship that returns, but that tells us nothing.

On the one hand we have the realist who says that statements are made true by objective features of the world, but what objective features of the world must obtain for the ship that leaves to be the ship that returns? Presumably that the mind-independent material stuff that leaves is the mind-independent material stuff that returns. Which in this case doesn't obtain, and so the realist must commit to "the ship that leaves is the ship that returns" being false. However that might not be a commitment the realist is willing to make, and so they must accept an anti-realist account of "the ship that leaves is the ship that returns" being true; that it's true because we think of the ship that leaves as being the ship that returns.

Does it? As I brought up the Ship of Theseus then let's consider that. The ship that leaves is the ship that returns but the material that leaves isn't the material that returns, therefore the ship isn't the material. — Michael

Or to bring it back to the topic of truth conditions, "the ship that leaves is the ship that returns" isn't made true by objective features of the world but by our own perceptions/conceptions/attitudes/whatever. We're anti-realists about the Ship of Theseus (assuming you agree that the ship that leaves is the ship that returns).

Of course, that's not to say that there isn't also mind-independent material stuff. It's just that that stuff has nothing to do with whether or not the ship that leaves is the ship that returns.

Pluto exists as a random allotment of particles — Hanover

Does it? As I brought up the Ship of Theseus then let's consider that. The ship that leaves is the ship that returns but the material that leaves isn't the material that returns, therefore the ship isn't the material.

Or would you commit to saying that the ship that leaves isn't the ship that returns, which it would appear the realist must? If so then how much of the material is the "true" substance of the thing? If only half the parts are replaced does it remain the same ship? A quarter? A tenth?

I'd say there are things and there are categories. Pluto was a planet, then it was not, but it was always there. All sorts of criteria must be met for us to call Pluto a planet and we can choose those criteria for whatever purposes we have, but Pluto remains regardless of what we call it and regardless of what category we assign it. That I take to be the fundamental tenant of realism. There is an independent substance sustaining the thing; otherwise the thing exists as a pure construct of our imagination. — Hanover

What makes Pluto one thing, and not trillions of different things? What we call "Pluto" is "really" a mass of particles in close proximity. Which of those particles are part of Pluto, which are part of some separated rock, which are a passing photon from the Sun?

Perhaps those particles have an independent substance, but I don't think Pluto is reducible to those particles. Names/words aren't just pointers to mind-independent entities. Think of the Ship of Theseus.

That is not how the rest of us use the word "truth". That's fine. — Banno

Maybe not. I'm just addressing your accusation that it leads to omniscience. That all truths have been verified is that all verified propositions have been verified, but that isn't that all propositions (or their negation) have been verified, and so isn't omniscience.

A mathematical anti-realist can claim to not know the square root of 123 without contradicting himself.

But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you say that verification and truth are the same, then you are also saying that all truths have been verified. — Banno

Yes, and? That's a tautology as I've said.

Say my wife is having an affair with someone, and then I catch them at it. I have verified that she is having an affair. It seems fine to say that prior to my having verified it it was not verified, but it seems absurd to say that prior to my having verified it, it was not true that she was having an affair. — Janus

Your very hypothetical scenario presupposes realism. Your wife is having an affair (unbeknownst to you), and then you find out. Obviously if you presuppose realism then you're going to find it absurd when you then consider anti-realism.

If you want to consider anti-realism then your hypothetical scenario is "I caught my wife having an affair and then saw evidence that this had been going on for a long time." Perfectly coherent scenario.

Facebook Instagram and WhatsApp have gone down globally in the past hour. Not a big deal really not being in contact with people for a few hours — Benj96

If only our phones could text and call without the internet.

Of course I can. That's how synonyms work. — Michael

Although I wouldn't as it's superfluous. I'd just say that some proposition either has been verified or hasn't been verified, or that its negative either has been verified or hasn't been verified. Nothing more needs to be said.

Then you cannot claim that what has been verified is true, nor that what has been proved mathematically is true. — Banno

Of course I can. That's how synonyms work.

So it seems to follow that all true mathematical propositions have been proved. — Banno

Yes, because "true" and "proved" mean the same thing, and it's a tautology that all proved mathematical propositions have been proved.

But if you claim that all that is true is what has been verified, you are obligated to say that all that is true has been verified. — Banno

The verificationist says both because "true" and "verified" mean the same thing to them.

That is, your answer is simply to deny that verifications has anything to do with truth.

No, it's to deny the realist's claim that "true" and "verified" mean different things.

It says all truths have been verified. — Banno

Yes, and "true" and "verified" mean the same thing, therefore the statement that all truths have been verified is the statement that all verified propositions have been verified. It's a tautology.

All truths have been verified. — Banno

Yes, all verified propositions have been verified. That's a tautology.

But verificationism holds that p is true if and only if it has been verified.

And it follows that everything that is true has been verified. — Banno

I would just say that verificationism holds that "true" and "verified" mean the same thing, and so the statement "p is true iff it is verified" is the tautology "p is verified iff it is verified". The same with the more general "to be true is to be known"; that all truths are known just is the tautology that everything that is known is known.

You can't go from either of these to "every p has been verified" or "every p is known" (i.e. omniscience).

For anti-realism, something's being true is the same as it's being known to be true.

Now a direct implication of this is that if something is true, then it is known - that we know everything.

Anti-realism is apparently committed to omniscience. — Banno

Also, a verificationist need not claim that everything has been verified.

Anti-realism holds that stuff is dependent in some way on us, that thinking makes it so. That is, some statement p is true only if it is believed or known to be true. — Banno

I don't need to be a mathematical realist to claim that I don't know the square root of 123.

This just seems to be indirect realism, but maybe that's what's meant by anti-realism, I don't know. If you're committed to the idea that there is some underlying structure that makes it real (i.e. having some independence from the observer) then that is realism to me. I accept that everything is interpreted within a person's mind and don't believe there is some sort of raw feed of data into someone's consciousness. So, you can interpret Ms. Windsor as queen, as just a kind old lady, or as a pounds of flesh and bones for whatever your purposes you might have, but that's realism to me. It's not direct realism, but I wasn't arguing for that. — Hanover

As I said to @khaled earlier, if Descartes' thought experiment were true and the world we see is an illusion created by some evil demon then even though something exists regardless of what we say about it (the evil demon), it would be wrong to be a realist about the world we see. The same with something like the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis. In both cases some underlying structure exists that is responsible for triggering in us certain kinds of experiences. But should we think of this as realism (whether direct or indirect)?

We need to be more specific than that. We need to be a realist about something in particular. A moral realist believes that a statement like "it is wrong to murder" is true and made true by mind-independent features of the world. A bird-house realist believes that a statement like "those stick and leaves are a house" is true and made true by mind-independent features of the world. A Queen-realist believes that "there is a Queen of England" is true and made true by mind-independent features of the world.

On the other hand, the building itself exists regardless of my preference or opinion. — Hanover

I don't think that quite addresses the anti-realist's position, though. Let's say that we in the UK abolish the monarchy. Does the Queen of England exist? Well, Elizabeth Windsor exists, but as there is no monarchy there is no Queen of England, and if there is no Queen of England then the Queen of England doesn't exist.

The existence of the Queen of England doesn't (just) depend on the existence of a particular material entity, but also on something more abstract than that – social customs/conventions/attitudes, or whatever you want to call it. The same might also be said of buildings. They might not be simply reducible to whatever mind-independent things exist without us (e.g. the fundamental particles of the Standard Model).

A bunch of sticks and leaves is just a bunch of sticks and leaves to us, but it's a house to a bird. In a world without birds we wouldn't (and shouldn't?) talk about houses of sticks and leaves. And perhaps in a world without humans we shouldn't talk about buildings of bricks and mortar. But then how far do we take this? Should we even talk about bricks and mortar in a world without humans? Perhaps it's just photons and electrons. Although if you're an instrumentalist about science then even that is a step too far. There's just some incomprehensible noumena – the stuff that explains why we see what we see, but that isn't really the stuff we see and talk about.

Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time? — TiredThinker

My coffee is neither true nor false. The word "hello" is neither true nor false.

But you’d be a realist about at least yourself or your thoughts. — khaled

That appears to be a contradiction. A common understanding of realism is that things are independent of one's perceptions, thoughts, etc. How can my thoughts be independent of my thoughts?

Evan if all we see is the way things seem to be to us, there may still be the way things are.

Changing this to a linguistic argument, realism entails that there are still true statements; while an anti-realist would say not make that commitment.

So a realist says the ball has a mass of 1kg; the anti-realist might say that saying that it has a mass of 1kg is useful, or fits their perceptions, but will not commit to it being true. — Banno

If we commit to something like Wittgenstein's theory of language – that meaning is use – then predicating truth of a statement is just another practice like any other speech act, with "correct" use being determined by public activity. The anti-realist can commit to statements being true well enough.

Realism is not the view that X exists regardless of what we say about it. It's the view that something exists regardless of what we say about it. — khaled

If Descartes' thought experiment were true and the world we see is an illusion created by some evil demon then even though something exists regardless of what we say about it (the evil demon), it would be wrong to be a realist about the world we see.

Gym, 8-ball pool.

Tried writing, drawing, and keyboard recently but gave up.

If you answer here is any different to taking the vaccine, what do you think is different about the situation? — Isaac

The fact that the companies aren’t trying to cover up their own fuckup. The fact that since the introduction of the vaccines the number of deaths, serious symptoms, and cases has dropped. The fact that there have been very few negative reactions to the vaccines.

That you think that the vaccine science is somehow comparable to poisoning water shows that you don’t understand the facts. You believe in false conspiracy theories.

I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry — Isaac

So you believe that the vaccine is either more dangerous than the disease or ineffective? It’s neither. So this reasoning is fallacious.

I don't agree that giving vaccines to healthy people who have little chance of contracting the severe disease is a good use of limited resources. — Isaac

There’s enough to go around. I don’t know about wherever you live but the UK has ordered enough for every adult, and presumably some children too. Refusing the vaccine just leaves it going to waste.

I’d get vaccinated against the common cold if it were possible, even though it’s such a minor illlness. Why would anyone refuse it? The whole “acceptable risk threshold” argument really makes no sense. You’re not going to die from a cold and the symptoms are reasonably mild and short term, yet if I could do away with them forever, or even just reduce their frequency and severity, in exchange for a couple of hours out of one day to get vaccinated, then I would. It’s a no-brainer.

Getting vaccinated is such a minor inconvenience that requires no lifestyle changes and which significantly decreases the chances of catching COVID and significantly reduces the severity of the symptoms, and so the chances of death, as well as reduces community transmission and so protects others and reduces the chance of further mutations.

So I think a better question to ask is why anyone wouldn’t get vaccinated. At least in the case of other “risky” choices like smoking or boxing one can defer to addiction and entertainment and things like that, but I can’t see anything like that for choosing to not be vaccinated. Is it just that you’re lazy and can’t be bothered? Is it that you believe that the vaccines are more dangerous than the disease? Is it that you’re being stubborn in the face of pressure to get vaccinated as some sort of principled objection to being told what to do?

To me, refusing to be vaccinated is as unreasonable as refusing to wear a seatbelt, or refusing antibiotics when sick with some infection. You shouldn’t need to be explained why you should do these things - that much is obvious. You should need to explain why you don’t do these things, as prima facie it’s idiotic, even if you’re at a low risk.

Medicine has a proven track record of lying. — Ambrosia

It also has a proven track record of telling the truth. Modern medicine works. Vaccinations have reduced the number of people dying from measles and COVID and lessened the severity of the symptoms.

I will trust my intelligence thanks. — Ambrosia

Intelligence isn't enough to know the facts about microbes and the immune system. That requires study and experimentation. Are you a trained pathologist?

All these precautions and intrusions are based on fear and deliberate lies. — Ambrosia

No, they're not. A great deal of them are based on facts and common sense risk aversion.

Whoever told you that vaccines don't work or that germ theory is false is the one peddling in lies (whether deliberate or from ignorance).

Dying from a cold is zero,unless your already very ill. — Ambrosia

But dying from measles and COVID isn't zero.

I notice your avoiding the gay cure example I gave,very disingenuous.

I didn't ignore it. The first thing I said to you is "medical science being wrong in the past isn't reason to dismiss medical science today."

Fact is you believe in vaccines a priori from appeal to authority

Yes, I do. It's a pragmatic approach to life. I'm told that it's dangerous to drink bleach so I don't drink bleach. A doctor tells me that my breathing difficulty and coughing is due to a chest infection and so I take the prescribed antibiotics.

Using "personal intelligence" (which you referred to here) involves understanding when it's appropriate to trust the word of experts. I have neither the time nor the resources nor the knowledge to conduct my own research into everything.

The fact people have died in boxing means I shouldn't box — Ambrosia

I'd certainly advise against it.

or take a vaccine beforehand???

No, because vaccines don't protect you from head trauma. A head- and mouth- guard would be more appropriate. Vaccines protect against viruses, e.g. measles. I'd recommend getting them during a pandemic, or when visiting certain foreign countries.

False equivalence! Nice sleight of hand! — Ambrosia

Why is it a false equivalence? Seatbelts are a preventive measure against trauma in the case of a car crash and vaccines are a preventative measure against infection in the case of contact with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

I never died of measles or colds or anything else! — Ambrosia

Plenty of other people have. I've already linked to this.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000– 2018, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 23.2 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 73% from an estimated 536 000 in 2000* to 142,000 in 2018.

The fact that people have died from measles is proof that measles is dangerous and the fact that an increase in vaccinations has reduced the number of deaths is proof that the vaccine works. It's rational to be vaccinated against measles. Arguing that you don't need to be vaccinated against measles because you have never died of measles is an irrational argument.

If I feel a risk I would wear a seat belt or such like. But that's my choice. — Ambrosia

Yes, it's your choice. And I'm asking you why you make the choice you do. It isn't very smart to choose to not wear a seatbelt and it isn't very smart to choose to not be vaccinated. Wearing a seatbelt and getting vaccinated are the rational choices to make.

You see I have explained clearly my reasons and you still want to badger. — Ambrosia

You claimed that you don't take vaccines because the common cold isn't dangerous and vaccines against them don't work, but there are diseases that are dangerous and with vaccines that do work (measles, COVID). I want to know why you don't get vaccinated against them.

Corona is the name for the common cold goook it up.

The common cold is a disease caused by many different viruses, including many different coronaviruses. These viruses can cause more than just the common cold, though. They can cause SARS, MERS, and COVID which are a lot more dangerous than the common cold.

Because pasteurs theory doesn't make sense in the real world. Nor is it proven by kochs postulates.

Koch's postulates have been supplanted by things like the Bradford Hill criteria and Falkow's criteria.

I don't wear a cast before I hurt my leg,just in case! — Ambrosia

But presumably you would wear a helmet when riding a motorbike, or when working on a construction site?