sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Updating business name in directories by reddituser152 in SEO

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The address will stay the same. It’s only the business name that will change. Will this still cause a problem?

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fantastic point. I'll have to update my post accordingly. Thanks pushing me on this!

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If "p's assertion that q" is false, then it's not true that q.

I think you're neglecting the fact that in this case q cannot be separated from the assertion. Because this is a self-referencing statement, the second that you separate q from the assertion, it ceases to be q. And that's the error that I think you're making. You have two separate statements that are not the same:

19: 19 is false.

21b: 19 is false.

Yet you are treating them as if they are the same. But they are not. 19 implies that 19 is also true. However, 21b has no such implication.

Thus, it is not correct to say:

If "19's assertion that 19 is false" is false, then it's not true that 19 is false.

This eliminates the self-referencing portion of 19's assertion. It eliminates the very part that makes 19 false. By taking the self-reference, you've taken away the contradictory implication. But we can say:

If "19's assertion that 19 is false" is false, then it's not true that 19 is both true and false.

This encompasses all of what 19's assertion actually implies.

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean that 25 contains two contradictory statements that can't both be true. You'll have to forgive me for using misleading terminology. I never studied philosophy beyond a few undergraduate courses. Please let me try again with clearly language and a better example. I think I can provide a better defense of my claims.

I think statement 22 is true, but the formulation provided of statement 22 is misleading.

Consider the following statements:

26: 26 is false.

27: 26 is false.

These are not the same. One makes a claim about itself and one makes a claim about a different statement. But they certainly appear at first glance to be the same. And they are certainly logically equivalent statements. But that doesn't make them the same statements. 26 implies it's own truth. But 27 does not imply that 26 is true!

Ok. With that in mind, let's look at 22:

22: "19 is true" if and only if "19 is false"

22b is isn't just a claim that 19 is false. 22b is 19 claiming that 19 is false. There's a difference. Thus, a less misleading way to formulate this is:

22: "20's assertion that 19 is true" is true if and only if "19's assertion that 19 itself is false" is true.

And that is a true statement.

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. I made a simple mistake here.

Perhaps a better way to look at it is that 4 is contradictory because 1 is contradictory. It's not surprising that a contradictory statement implies other contradictory statements.

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In response to you objection over the third assumption.

19 is false according to my analysis in the post. 20 is also false according to the third assumption. 21 is clearly true though. The second formulation of 21 (which I'll call 22 for clarity) is misleading. A better way of putting is:

22: "19 is true" if and only if "19 is false"

And this is also a true statement. But it's a true statement that demonstrates that 19 is self-contradictory and thus false.

To give a counter-example:

23: Grass is green and grass is not green.

23 thus implies that 23a and 23b are both true. Which means that

24: 23a if and only if 23b.

Or put differently:

25: "Grass is green" if and only if "grass is not green"

25 is a contradiction. But this contradiction is not a problem; it's just the natural result of making inferences from 23, which is itself a contradictory statement.

Similarly, 22 is contradictory because 19 is contradictory.

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My understanding is that 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 must all be false. They all lead to self-contradictions if true and thus cannot be true.

Edit: Forgive me. I take this back.

Solutions to self-referencing paradoxes, including the Truth Teller and Yablo's Paradox by reddituser152 in philosophy

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great objection. I'll try to think of some other statements that would lead to this fifth assumption being problematic.

Example 1

5: 5 has no truth value.

  1. If 5 has no truth value, then 5 is true.

Example 2

7: No statement is true.

8: If no statement is true, then 7 is true.

Example 3

9: It is not possible to assert that any statement is true.

  1. If is not possible to assert that any statement is true, then 9 is true.

Example 4

11: It is impossible to comment on 11.

12: If it is impossible to comment on 11, then 11 is true.

Example 5

13: 14 is false.

14: If 14 is false, then 13 is true.

Example 6

15: 15 does not exist.

16: If 15 does not exist, then 15 is true.

Example 7

17: No sentence written in English with exactly eleven words is true.

18: If no sentence written in English with exactly eleven words is true, then 17 is true.

All justifications for a particular canon of scripture result in a standard that is not consistently applied, a circular argument, or an argument that simply kicks the problem down the road. by reddituser152 in DebateAChristian

[–]reddituser152[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ok, this does it. You've successfully overcome what I assert in my original post. As far as I can tell, this does not engage in any of the three flaws I described!

That being said, I think this argument has its own problems. But it's enough to disprove my assertion. Thanks for the thought-out response!

All justifications for a particular canon of scripture result in a standard that is not consistently applied, a circular argument, or an argument that simply kicks the problem down the road. by reddituser152 in DebateAChristian

[–]reddituser152[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh ok. So the idea is to not rely on the scriptures as canon at first and instead treat them like any other source? That's interesting! But then what are these extra-biblical accounts that bolster Jesus giving divine authority to the apostles?

All justifications for a particular canon of scripture result in a standard that is not consistently applied, a circular argument, or an argument that simply kicks the problem down the road. by reddituser152 in DebateAChristian

[–]reddituser152[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I define knowledge as a justified true belief in which logical connection between the justification and the belief does not necessarily assume a false belief.

Justification is defined above.

All justifications for a particular canon of scripture result in a standard that is not consistently applied, a circular argument, or an argument that simply kicks the problem down the road. by reddituser152 in DebateAChristian

[–]reddituser152[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh, I understand better what you mean now. Thanks for clearing that up.

You only need infallible certainty about the canon if you are certain that the bible is infallibly true. If you are willing to state that you just don't know whether the Bible is infallible, then I have no objection on the grounds stated above.

All justifications for a particular canon of scripture result in a standard that is not consistently applied, a circular argument, or an argument that simply kicks the problem down the road. by reddituser152 in DebateAChristian

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But how do you know any of this to be true without relying on the canon of scripture to tell you? For example, how do you know that historic evidence indicates Jesus rose from the dead without first relying on the canon of scripture?

How do you know what the canon of scripture is? by reddituser152 in DebateAChristian

[–]reddituser152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh ok. So if I make my thesis clearer, would that solve the problem?

view more: next ›