Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:41 am
Maybe we need a "secret" chatroom 
This forum is "out-of-game." I was making a joke.Morgan wrote:Wow, I am completely lost. :< And sucks that we can't talk about it.
Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
https://lg15.cassieiswatching.com/forum/
[Update] Bring Your Answers!
https://lg15.cassieiswatching.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1694
Page 2 of 6
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:48 am
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:37 am
[quote="Nora Volkova"]I know! For me, too. I remember now how interesting I thought it all was, and how frustrated I would get when I would try to bring it up in small talk, lol.
I never was very good at small talk.[/quote]
I thought it was really cool too, but realized quickly that it made me awfully dull at parties. Sad though.
I never was very good at small talk.
[/quote]I thought it was really cool too, but realized quickly that it made me awfully dull at parties. Sad though.
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:52 am
Same here. When I saw the question, memories of lame essays came back...taiya wrote: Wow, it's been a quite a long time since first year philosphy...
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:08 am
I rather like that idea. If we did it, could we have it on the same server as the cassieiswatching one (freenode) so people wouldn't have to sign on to two different servers?toadlguy wrote:Maybe we need a "secret" chatroom
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:19 am
We don't need a secret chat room. Everything can be discussed here. Who cares? Only insiders wil ever read this thread anyway.
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:28 am
I'm not so much interested by the "secret" part as I am the chat room part. Real time chat is kind of nice sometimes.DontHaveAClue wrote:We don't need a secret chat room. Everything can be discussed here. Who cares? Only insiders wil ever read this thread anyway.
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:32 am
haha...then you should come to the IRC cassieiswaiting chat. it's pretty hilarious most of the time!S is for Summer wrote: I'm not so much interested by the "secret" part as I am the chat room part. Real time chat is kind of nice sometimes.
but watch out for clowns! Clowns are evil. [/off topic]Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:18 am
I'm there a bit! But it gets so crazy crowded, and honestly, I don't follow the CiW super closely. HSA is way more interesting to me.
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:28 am
Just found this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/
It seems more relevant than the gettier problem. Look under the three varieties of knowledge part.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/
It seems more relevant than the gettier problem. Look under the three varieties of knowledge part.
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:39 pm
So there are new clues from Ms. Kelly
I've been trying to figure out #2:
X= (TERM 2)
Correspondence Semantic Deflationary Coherence Pragmatic = (term 2)
Correspondence Semantic Deflationary Coherence Pragmatic are all theories of truth
x = theories of truth???
what do you think
(am I going to get expelled for talking about this? )
I've been trying to figure out #2:
X= (TERM 2)
Correspondence Semantic Deflationary Coherence Pragmatic = (term 2)
Correspondence Semantic Deflationary Coherence Pragmatic are all theories of truth
x = theories of truth???
what do you think
(am I going to get expelled for talking about this? )
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:15 pm
only if you use the same name at the school!sparkybennett wrote: (am I going to get expelled for talking about this? )
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:45 pm
All in one page:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
Correspondence:
Semantic:
Uhm, this one keeps losing me. Supposedly there is some difference between it and Correspondence theory, but I'm not sure I follow it.
Deflationary:
Hmm. As far as I can tell, this basically is a fancy way of saying, "don't bother saying that a thing is true, because you can't make something true by saying that." Or ... something....
Pragmatic:
Coherence:
This one is also what is referred to in postmodernism when university types go on about truth being constructed.
Hmm.... I would rather "truth" be confined to discussion of facts, but it *is* semantically useful to talk about emotional Truths, especially when discussing religious mythologies.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
Correspondence:
p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact.
Semantic:
Uhm, this one keeps losing me. Supposedly there is some difference between it and Correspondence theory, but I'm not sure I follow it.
Deflationary:
Hmm. As far as I can tell, this basically is a fancy way of saying, "don't bother saying that a thing is true, because you can't make something true by saying that." Or ... something....
Pragmatic:
I call bullshit on that!A Pragmatic Theory of Truth holds (roughly) that a proposition is true if it is useful to believe. Peirce and James were its principal advocates. Utility is the essential mark of truth. Beliefs that lead to the best 'payoff', that are the best justification of our actions, that promote success, are truths, according to the pragmatists.
Coherence:
Specifically, a Coherence Theory of Truth will claim that a proposition is true if and only if it coheres with ___. For example, one Coherence Theory fills this blank with "the beliefs of the majority of persons in one's society". Another fills the blank with "one's own beliefs", and yet another fills it with "the beliefs of the intellectuals in one's society". The major coherence theories view coherence as requiring at least logical consistency. Rationalist metaphysicians would claim that a proposition is true if and only if it "is consistent with all other true propositions". Some rationalist metaphysicians go a step beyond logical consistency and claim that a proposition is true if and only if it entails (or lgoically implies) all other true propositions". Leibniz, Spinoza, Hegel, Bradley, Blanshard, Neurath, Hempel (late in his life), Dummett, and Putnam have advocated Coherence Theories of truth.
This one is also what is referred to in postmodernism when university types go on about truth being constructed.
Hmm.... I would rather "truth" be confined to discussion of facts, but it *is* semantically useful to talk about emotional Truths, especially when discussing religious mythologies.
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:37 pm
The picture from Item Three seems to be a broken link -- did anyone save it?
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:45 pm
This would seem to be what is being talked about in here first study point: Coherence vs. Non-Coherence - wait I'm behind NMNora Volkova wrote: Coherence:
Specifically, a Coherence Theory of Truth will claim that a proposition is true if and only if it coheres with ___. For example, one Coherence Theory fills this blank with "the beliefs of the majority of persons in one's society". Another fills the blank with "one's own beliefs", and yet another fills it with "the beliefs of the intellectuals in one's society". The major coherence theories view coherence as requiring at least logical consistency. Rationalist metaphysicians would claim that a proposition is true if and only if it "is consistent with all other true propositions". Some rationalist metaphysicians go a step beyond logical consistency and claim that a proposition is true if and only if it entails (or lgoically implies) all other true propositions". Leibniz, Spinoza, Hegel, Bradley, Blanshard, Neurath, Hempel (late in his life), Dummett, and Putnam have advocated Coherence Theories of truth.