New answers tagged

4

Interpreted narrowly, your question seems related to the problem of (data) fishing, where someone investigates hypothesis after hypothesis on the data until getting statistical significance on one (without correcting for the number of hypotheses considered), so that in all likelihood it was just a fluke. This is a well understood problem. Interpreted more ...


1

It's best not to think of this as merely 'borrowing words.' I suspect that Wittgenstein himself would have said that it's impossible to borrow a word as such; what we do instead is import rules across games in strange ways. Imagine if you and I were playing checkers, and when I got a piece all the way to your side of the board (creating a king), I started ...


0

Excellent question which certainly preoccupies philosophers. It's good step on the path of better critical thinking, so keep at it! The relation between natural language ambiguity and equivocation First, as Conifold in the comments points out, equivocation is an informal fallacy whereby one uses two different meanings of the word when drawing an inference. ...


0

Sentence (2) is a version of Curry's paradox, while (1) is simple instance of the liar paradox. Both of course are close cousins: They involve self-reference as well as semantical predicates like 'is true'. However, there are some differences: Curry paradoxes involve principles concerning conditional reasoning, while liars don't. This is quite obvious when ...


0

Your first proposition is that statement 1 = statement 2. However, that is false. This becomes clearer if we negate both propositions. 1) This statement is true 2) This statement is untrue if true and not true 1) is always true, while 2) just says it is untrue if it is contradictory. 1) is always true, while 2) doesn't always have to be true. Negate both ...


0

Minimalist formal languages don't bother defining 'False' (nor 'True' for that matter), or even 'not', they start from 'nand' -- the operation 'the first of these propositions contradicts the second' (sometimes represented as the Sheffer Stroke). Then they derive everything else. Avoiding pedantic symbol-mongering, to get to a normal range of symbols they ...


-1

At the risk of misunderstanding you (my apologies in advance): it's hard to say that liar sentences correspond to propositions. There's no abstract proposition, in the universe of sets (or Forms or whatever), that somehow is referring to itself and self-encoding as false. At least, I doubt there is such an entity. (I have no idea, maybe Zalta's work covers ...


0

Welcome, Donald. Is "lacking belief in X" equivalent to "belief in the nonexistence of X"? Examples may help. 1.I may never have heard of Mount Vernon. So I lack belief in Mount Vernon's existence. It does not follow from my ignorance of Mount Vernon that I believe that Mount Vernon does not exist. How can I believe that something of which I have never ...


0

Before: doubt is related to truth. Not the absolute truth or a philosophical truth, but personal truth. A doubt exist when a concept can be related either with truth of falsehood. For example, my son has my keys can be true since he usually hides your keys, but can be false since he says he is not hiding them. So, doubt is the inability to relate a concept ...


0

I agree with you that in general there are three options regarding believing a statement p: believe p, believe not-p, or be undecided whether p or not-p (this is usually called 'suspending judgment'). Those who are undecided on whether there is a god are usually called agnostics. Those who believe that there is no god are usually called atheists. So in this ...


0

SHORT ANSWER Signore Allegranza has largely addressed the question of whether Blackburn is an epistemologist with his link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Blackburn. As for the relationship between science, theory, and epistemology, an oversimplification would be as follows: If epistemology is the practice of deciding which beliefs are true, then ...


Top 50 recent answers are included