Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Innomen must go

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:55:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I cannot bear the weight of such stupidity, my friend, especially since it's yours....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:55:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your one of the people who doesn't grasp these definitions.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:56:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:55:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Your one of the people who doesn't grasp these definitions.
*You're
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hey, who thinks pie is better than cake?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:58:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
IZBO10 MUST GO!! You are the most abusiv person on this site.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:02:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

1st-grade*

Many of your sentences are run-on sentences as well.

Do I need to teach you 2nd-grade grammar so you can properly teach 1st-grade definitions?
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:02:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:58:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
Hey, who thinks pie is better than cake?

I smell a debate in the oven!
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:10:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:02:58 PM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:58:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
Hey, who thinks pie is better than cake?

I smell a debate in the oven.

lol I don't think I've actually ever seen a debate on this, could be cool
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:10:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo may be crass and quite obnoxious, but does he really deserve to have a majority of people expressing nothing but hatred for him? At this point, I doubt he's rude out of malicious intent, it may just be that he doesn't really understand how his derogatory language is inappropriate. There are people who grow up not knowing how to properly conduct themselves in respectful discourse, of no fault of their own. They deserve some sympathy, not just stark and overwhelming ostracism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:10:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:02:58 PM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:58:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
Hey, who thinks pie is better than cake?

I smell a debate in the oven.

lol I don't think I've actually ever seen a debate on this, could be cool

Alright, let's do it. I'll even let you pick your stance.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"

You are conflating this and totally undermining truth. The word has a very simple meaning. How we find out what the actual truth is, is the complicated part.

the state of being the case

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now that was simple the part that is complicated is actually getting all the facts to find out what is true in a circumstance. There is a difference.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:28:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"

You are conflating this and totally undermining truth. The word has a very simple meaning. How we find out what the actual truth is, is the complicated part.

the state of being the case

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now that was simple the part that is complicated is actually getting all the facts to find out what is true in a circumstance. There is a difference.

"state of being the case"

"the body of real things, events, and facts"

"the property of being in accord with fact"

These are all different forms of what is known as Correspondence theory of Truth.

Example: If "Snow is white" is true then Snow is White.

Could that be the definition of truth? Yes.

But it not only has multiple versions (ex. logical atomism v subatomism), it has several competing theories of truth all of which have differing forms of explanatory power (correspondence theory of truth, pragmatic theory, identity theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth).

If you want to write an eight grade essay on philosophy, use the dictionary when defining the term "truth."

When you want to play with the big boys, look a bit harder.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:34:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:28:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"

You are conflating this and totally undermining truth. The word has a very simple meaning. How we find out what the actual truth is, is the complicated part.

the state of being the case

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now that was simple the part that is complicated is actually getting all the facts to find out what is true in a circumstance. There is a difference.

"state of being the case"

"the body of real things, events, and facts"

"the property of being in accord with fact"

These are all different forms of what is known as Correspondence theory of Truth.

Example: If "Snow is white" is true then Snow is White.

Could that be the definition of truth? Yes.

But it not only has multiple versions (ex. logical atomism v subatomism), it has several competing theories of truth all of which have differing forms of explanatory power (correspondence theory of truth, pragmatic theory, identity theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth).

If you want to write an eight grade essay on philosophy, use the dictionary when defining the term "truth."

When you want to play with the big boys, look a bit harder.

You are conflating the definition with how to determine what is true. If you want to play with the big boys explain what I just said and why you didn't comprehend it the first time.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:35:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo10, I believe your story of attending college to be a fabrication.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:38:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:35:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, I believe your story of attending college to be a fabrication.

No, this is just so far over your head right now.

He is conflating what the word truth means, with what situations and facts are actually true.

It is not hard to define truth, but to get the actual truth of any situation is nearly impossible. He is going after the second part and missing the part i am addressing which is the word actually has a simple definition. Just applying it is difficult.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:40:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:38:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:35:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, I believe your story of attending college to be a fabrication.

No, this is just so far over your head right now.

He is conflating what the word truth means, with what situations and facts are actually true.

It is not hard to define truth, but to get the actual truth of any situation is nearly impossible. He is going after the second part and missing the part i am addressing which is the word actually has a simple definition. Just applying it is difficult.

And such you have displayed the critical thinking of a middle-high schooler.

Please try to think past the definitions, please...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:40:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

Do you mean bannable
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:41:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:40:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

Do you mean bannable

Bananable?
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 11:55:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:34:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:28:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"

You are conflating this and totally undermining truth. The word has a very simple meaning. How we find out what the actual truth is, is the complicated part.

the state of being the case

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now that was simple the part that is complicated is actually getting all the facts to find out what is true in a circumstance. There is a difference.

"state of being the case"

"the body of real things, events, and facts"

"the property of being in accord with fact"

These are all different forms of what is known as Correspondence theory of Truth.

Example: If "Snow is white" is true then Snow is White.

Could that be the definition of truth? Yes.

But it not only has multiple versions (ex. logical atomism v subatomism), it has several competing theories of truth all of which have differing forms of explanatory power (correspondence theory of truth, pragmatic theory, identity theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth).

If you want to write an eight grade essay on philosophy, use the dictionary when defining the term "truth."

When you want to play with the big boys, look a bit harder.

You are conflating the definition with how to determine what is true. If you want to play with the big boys explain what I just said and why you didn't comprehend it the first time.

"the state of being the case"

Truth and falsity applies to propositions. A cat is not true or false. A war is not true or false. A question is not true or false. A PROPOSITION is true or false.

You are saying one of two things:

Proposition "x" is true if it corresponds to x being the case.
Proposition "x" is identical to x being the case.

Those are the correspondence and identity theories of truth, respectively.

However....

Verificationists (http://en.wikipedia.org...) disagree.

Coherentists (http://plato.stanford.edu...) disagree.

Deflationists (http://plato.stanford.edu...) disagree.

Pragmatists (http://en.wikipedia.org...) disagree.

Tell me, are you using the identity or correspondence theory of truth when appealing to Webster?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 12:41:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 11:55:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:34:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:28:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"

You are conflating this and totally undermining truth. The word has a very simple meaning. How we find out what the actual truth is, is the complicated part.

the state of being the case

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now that was simple the part that is complicated is actually getting all the facts to find out what is true in a circumstance. There is a difference.

"state of being the case"

"the body of real things, events, and facts"

"the property of being in accord with fact"

These are all different forms of what is known as Correspondence theory of Truth.

Example: If "Snow is white" is true then Snow is White.

Could that be the definition of truth? Yes.

But it not only has multiple versions (ex. logical atomism v subatomism), it has several competing theories of truth all of which have differing forms of explanatory power (correspondence theory of truth, pragmatic theory, identity theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth).

If you want to write an eight grade essay on philosophy, use the dictionary when defining the term "truth."

When you want to play with the big boys, look a bit harder.

You are conflating the definition with how to determine what is true. If you want to play with the big boys explain what I just said and why you didn't comprehend it the first time.

"the state of being the case"

Truth and falsity applies to propositions. A cat is not true or false. A war is not true or false. A question is not true or false. A PROPOSITION is true or false.

You are saying one of two things:

Proposition "x" is true if it corresponds to x being the case.
Proposition "x" is identical to x being the case.

Those are the correspondence and identity theories of truth, respectively.

However....

Verificationists (http://en.wikipedia.org...) disagree.

Coherentists (http://plato.stanford.edu...) disagree.

Deflationists (http://plato.stanford.edu...) disagree.

Pragmatists (http://en.wikipedia.org...) disagree.

Tell me, are you using the identity or correspondence theory of truth when appealing to Webster?

Again not grasping what the word means with its application come again.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 12:49:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 12:41:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:55:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:34:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:28:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/25/2011 11:00:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:53:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I know I probably won't win, but I just spent the better part of the night on a site dedicated to debate going over 1st grade definitions like belief and knowledge with several members of this board and this is becoming the norm on here. This is a debate site, we must have some standard of intelligence on this site and innomen doesn't care.

If I were to win this would be banable and really needs to be stopped.

I spent a university semester in class called Theories of Truth taught by Solomon Feferman, one of Tarski's students. The class was devoted to trying to define the word "truth."

The class wasn't long enough for us to even consider the word "knowledge."

Tell me, is he engaging on first grade reasoning levels if he can't define something like "truth?"

You are conflating this and totally undermining truth. The word has a very simple meaning. How we find out what the actual truth is, is the complicated part.

the state of being the case

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now that was simple the part that is complicated is actually getting all the facts to find out what is true in a circumstance. There is a difference.

"state of being the case"

"the body of real things, events, and facts"

"the property of being in accord with fact"

These are all different forms of what is known as Correspondence theory of Truth.

Example: If "Snow is white" is true then Snow is White.

Could that be the definition of truth? Yes.

But it not only has multiple versions (ex. logical atomism v subatomism), it has several competing theories of truth all of which have differing forms of explanatory power (correspondence theory of truth, pragmatic theory, identity theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth).

If you want to write an eight grade essay on philosophy, use the dictionary when defining the term "truth."

When you want to play with the big boys, look a bit harder.

You are conflating the definition with how to determine what is true. If you want to play with the big boys explain what I just said and why you didn't comprehend it the first time.

"the state of being the case"

Truth and falsity applies to propositions. A cat is not true or false. A war is not true or false. A question is not true or false. A PROPOSITION is true or false.

You are saying one of two things:

Proposition "x" is true if it corresponds to x being the case.
Proposition "x" is identical to x being the case.

Those are the correspondence and identity theories of truth, respectively.

However....

Verificationists (http://en.wikipedia.org...) disagree.

Coherentists (http://plato.stanford.edu...) disagree.

Deflationists (http://plato.stanford.edu...) disagree.

Pragmatists (http://en.wikipedia.org...) disagree.

Tell me, are you using the identity or correspondence theory of truth when appealing to Webster?

Again not grasping what the word means with its application come again.

You pointed to Miriam Webster as though the dictionary proves only one definition of truth exists.

I showed you several alternatives to that definition.

Izbo: One definition of truth exists.
Wnope: Actually, there is more than one. Here are some examples.
Izbo: you are not grasping what the word means with it's application.

What are YOU not grasping about that?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 12:53:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
They all are going into finding the truth and how truth is obtained which is where you are missing the boat. Sorry you can't grasp the diference.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:03:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 12:53:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:
They all are going into finding the truth and how truth is obtained which is where you are missing the boat. Sorry you can't grasp the diference.

So Miriam Webster is going into finding the truth?

You're the one who cited it.

Miriam Webster uses Correspondence Theory/Identity Theory in order to define "truth."

You said it yourself. The state of being the case. Propositions are truth-bearers, not states. A proposition is true iff the state of being the case is obtained OR the proposition corresponds to the state of being the case.

If Webster used Coherence Theory, the dictionary would say something else. However, correspondence is the predominant and most intuitive theory so it is assumed as standard.

Coherence, Pragmatism, etc are all different ways to DEFINE truth. That's why they were created.

So tell me, how is it possible that only one definition of truth exists (the one in Miriam)?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:07:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 1:03:52 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/26/2011 12:53:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:
They all are going into finding the truth and how truth is obtained which is where you are missing the boat. Sorry you can't grasp the diference.

So Miriam Webster is going into finding the truth?

You're the one who cited it.

Miriam Webster uses Correspondence Theory/Identity Theory in order to define "truth."

You said it yourself. The state of being the case. Propositions are truth-bearers, not states. A proposition is true iff the state of being the case is obtained OR the proposition corresponds to the state of being the case.

If Webster used Coherence Theory, the dictionary would say something else. However, correspondence is the predominant and most intuitive theory so it is assumed as standard.

Coherence, Pragmatism, etc are all different ways to DEFINE truth. That's why they were created.

So tell me, how is it possible that only one definition of truth exists (the one in Miriam)?

They are all theories on the application of truth. You don't seem to get it. Its like there is a definition of logic and an application of it. I am talking definition you are conflating application. Please stay with me.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:22:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 1:07:50 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/26/2011 1:03:52 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/26/2011 12:53:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:
They all are going into finding the truth and how truth is obtained which is where you are missing the boat. Sorry you can't grasp the diference.

So Miriam Webster is going into finding the truth?

You're the one who cited it.

Miriam Webster uses Correspondence Theory/Identity Theory in order to define "truth."

You said it yourself. The state of being the case. Propositions are truth-bearers, not states. A proposition is true iff the state of being the case is obtained OR the proposition corresponds to the state of being the case.

If Webster used Coherence Theory, the dictionary would say something else. However, correspondence is the predominant and most intuitive theory so it is assumed as standard.

Coherence, Pragmatism, etc are all different ways to DEFINE truth. That's why they were created.

So tell me, how is it possible that only one definition of truth exists (the one in Miriam)?

They are all theories on the application of truth. You don't seem to get it. Its like there is a definition of logic and an application of it. I am talking definition you are conflating application. Please stay with me.

How is statement 1 different from statement 2.

1.) truth is the state of being the case.

2.) Proposition "x" is true if it obtains the state of being the case.

Remember, only propositions have truth values. A fact is a proposition about a state of reality. A fact can be true or false, but the state of reality itself cannot be true or false.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:34:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 1:03:52 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/26/2011 12:53:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:
They all are going into finding the truth and how truth is obtained which is where you are missing the boat. Sorry you can't grasp the diference.

So Miriam Webster is going into finding the truth?

You're the one who cited it.

Miriam Webster uses Correspondence Theory/Identity Theory in order to define "truth."

You said it yourself. The state of being the case. Propositions are truth-bearers, not states. A proposition is true iff the state of being the case is obtained OR the proposition corresponds to the state of being the case.

If Webster used Coherence Theory, the dictionary would say something else. However, correspondence is the predominant and most intuitive theory so it is assumed as standard.

Coherence, Pragmatism, etc are all different ways to DEFINE truth. That's why they were created.

So tell me, how is it possible that only one definition of truth exists (the one in Miriam)?
They all have different perceptions of the way things are, that is an application of truth.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:36:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wnope I have noticed you read these things and dont really grasp them and throw out rediculous statements. Why don't you try to grasp what I am saying. What merriam webster and what these theories are trying to accomplish are not the same. The theories are trying to tell us what is true and webster is telling us what the definition of truth is.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:42:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 1:36:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Wnope I have noticed you read these things and dont really grasp them and throw out rediculous statements. Why don't you try to grasp what I am saying. What merriam webster and what these theories are trying to accomplish are not the same. The theories are trying to tell us what is true and webster is telling us what the definition of truth is.

Yes or No

Propositions may be true or false, but states of reality (like a cat or World War II) cannot.