|
|
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > "Peter_Smith" <ps218@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Of course conjectures have truth-values before we establish them one
> > way or the other: we just don't know what the truth-values are.
> You keep repeating a conjecture that you cannot justify, yet you say I'm
> the one with the "elementary confusion"...
Peter says so quite rightly.
> Not all conjectures have truth-values. "An undetectable elephant lives
> in my garage" has no truth value, it can never be either true or false.
It can, and it actually is either true or false.
> "Marlopots exist" has no truth value (because "marlopots" is a
> meaningless word.) Some conjectures are meaningless, no truth value can
> ever be associated with them at all.
It's nonsensical to call a sentence a conjecture that contains
meaningless letter sequences.
> How can one have knowledge? If one accepts JTB, then one can only have
> knowledge if his assertion is true, but of course no one can know that
> his assertion is true unless they have knowledge.
We certainly cannot know that something is the case without knowing
that it is the case. But the crucial point you still don't understand
is that there is a relevant difference between what is the case and
what is known to be the case. What is known to be the case is the case,
but it simply doesn't follow that what is not known to be the case is
not the case. This is a formal fallacy!
#PH
|
|