What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

The word is "possibility" and what ultimately defines all of them.

It is not humans.

Nah. The imoprtant word in ”logical possibility” is ”logical”.

It's merely an alleged kind of possibility.

The word that needs some understanding is "possibility".

And also what defines all possibilities.

It is not fallible humans.

 

[fast]

It's merely an alleged kind of possibility.

Is a dwarf planet a planet?

 

[untermensche]

It's merely an alleged kind of possibility.

Is a dwarf planet a planet?

Who defines what a planet is?

 

[fast]

Is a dwarf planet a planet?

Who defines what a planet is?

That same one Neil degrasse tyson was apart of when he shot Pluto

 

[Speakpigeon]

When we ask 6 year old Pam if she knows her name and she says yes, she is not merely expressing just a belief but rather a highly justified belief.

When you realise you were mistaken, you will accept to say you in fact didn't know (not just now but at the time) but you will still say that you indeed believed (at the time). So, clearly, what we mean by 'belief' and 'knowledge' don't just differ by the degree of certainty or justification. Realising you were mistaken in a claim to knowledge doesn't change the justification. It's still the same justification except now you accept it's no good. Why should we trust the kind of justifications given by human beings if they themselves treat these justifications as unreliable?

Pam's behaviour and performance can be entirely explained in terms of belief. I don't know of any explanation that would morph her belief into knowledge.

The position you defend here, too, can be entirely explained in terms of what you believe. I don't need to assume you really know anything at all about the material world to understand your behaviour and performance.

Whether she in fact knows THAT she knows makes not one iota difference, for if it's actually true that her name is Pam, then she knows.

No, because Pam would claim her name is Sophie if that's what she had come to believe.

Also, you're claiming you know things, and that's in itself a claim to knowledge, i.e. that you know you know things. And according to JTF, you'd need to have some justification for this particular claim. And clearly you don't. You should accept by your own benchmark that you don't know that you know things.

We can do this 3000 more times, and what we learn is that kids know their names.

They sure know something but that's very different from the kind of knowledge suggested by the phrase "they know their names". Even parrots can do the trick children can do.

Now, if we repeat this process, eventually we're gonna come across a kidnapping case whereby the child was merely taught that her name was one thing while the facts of the matter is that wasn't her actual name.

And all those children will have the same justification to their claim to knowledge. So, justifications have no value whatsoever.

The similarity in conviction might very well be the same amongst all the children, but while one claims to know and doesn't, the remainder makes the claim and does. Those that don't know they know doesn't have an effect on the fact they in fact know what they claim to.

If you're claiming you know things, that's in itself a claim to knowledge, i.e. that you know you know things. And according to JTF, you'd need to have some justification for this particular claim. And clearly you don't. You should accept by your own benchmark that you don't know that you know things.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Who defines what a planet is?

That same one Neil degrasse tyson was apart of when he shot Pluto

So they are defined by human caprice.

Nothing like "possibilities".

 

[fast]

That same one Neil degrasse tyson was apart of when he shot Pluto

So they are defined by human caprice.

Nothing like "possibilities".

Different. Yes. I get that. I want you to see something. Wrestle with it. Fight for or against it. THEN, relate it. You're jumping ship too soon. You said, "it's merely an alleged kind of possibility."

Okay, so the term, "dwarf planet" was defined by people. All terms are defined by people. Same in that way, right? Different in others.

Pluto was once considered a planet. It no longer fits the criteria for a planet, but it fits the criteria for a dwarf planet. Pluto is a dwarf planet. Is Pluto a type of planet? The answer is no. A dwarf planet is not a type of planet.

Six dwarf planets have been discovered in our solar system, and eight planets have been discovered in our solar system. Although we discovered Pluto and thought it was a planet, well, I'll let that go, but between the two groups of celestial bodies, there are 14.

We can arrive at a couple opposing positions (A & F)
A) There are 8 planets and 6 dwarf planets

F) There are 14 planets, 8 of which are regular and 6 of which are dwarf.

I take the position that gets an A. What's the 'allegation' in the term "dwarf planet"?

 

[untermensche]

Humans define what is a planet and what is a dwarf planet.

Humans do not define what is possible.

 

[fast]

Humans define what is a planet and what is a dwarf planet.

Humans do not define what is possible.

Humans can't change what a planet is. They can fiddle around with stipulative definitions.

 

[untermensche]

Humans define what is a planet and what is a dwarf planet.

Humans do not define what is possible.

Humans can't change what a planet is. They can fiddle around with stipulative definitions.

Humans can define a planet anyway they choose.

Then after this arbitrary definition is devised it is possible to find objects that fit it.

But nothing is demonstrated merely by creating arbitrary definitions.

 

[Juma]

Nah. The imoprtant word in ”logical possibility” is ”logical”.

It's merely an alleged kind of possibility.

The word that needs some understanding is "possibility".

And also what defines all possibilities.

It is not fallible humans.

Facepalm.

 

[untermensche]

So you plant your face in your palm every time you don't understand something?

 

[fast]

Humans can't change what a planet is. They can fiddle around with stipulative definitions.

Humans can define a planet anyway they choose.

Then after this arbitrary definition is devised it is possible to find objects that fit it.

But nothing is demonstrated merely by creating arbitrary definitions.

They can stipulate usage for the word "planet," but you deny they can do that with the word, "possibility."

First off, dismayed as I might be, there is a reasoning behind those in science for stipulating a particular usage for the word "planet," so the notion that it's an arbitrary assignment of criteria is false. Second, why you think stipulative uses can be done for some words while not others is puzzling.

At any rate, I wanted to highlight a distinction between how various terms can be shown as being apart of two separate groups.

Take the examples "dwarf planet" vs "planet" on the one hand and "golf ball" vs "ball" on the other. If you can simultaneously understand why a dwarf planet isn't a type of planet while also understanding that a golf ball is a type of ball, you might just see that you're treating "logical possibility" as if it's similar to "golf ball" when instead it's similar to "dwarf planet."

The term, "dwarf planet" is misleading while the term, "golf ball" is not. When we speak of a golf ball, it doesn't take much thinking to grasp that a golf ball is a type of ball--the term, "ball" is broad and the term, "golf ball" is narrowed such that a thing can be both a golf ball and a ball. This is the kind of rationale you're imbuing on the term, "logical possibility." Mistake!

The term, "dwarf planet" suggests (by how it is written) that a dwarf planet is a type of planet, but the devil is in the details. An object cannot be both a dwarf planet and a planet like an object can be both a golf ball and a ball. If you can see that the term, "logical possibility" is unlike the ball example and like the planet example, you could then see why everyone else can be more open to the notion that something can be both possible and impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Humans can define a planet anyway they choose.

Then after this arbitrary definition is devised it is possible to find objects that fit it.

But nothing is demonstrated merely by creating arbitrary definitions.

They can stipulate usage for the word "planet," but you deny they can do that with the word, "possibility."...

What do you not get about the fact that humans define what a planet is but they do not define what is possible?

All a human can do is experiment and see what the universe allows.

Humans do not define possibilities in any way. They merely recognize them sometimes.

 

[fast]

What do you not get about the fact that humans define what a planet is but they do not define what is possible?

You're the one who thinks people have some magical power to define things. You are the one unaware that you're making a category error. People haven't been handed the sorcery spell to define things yet. The warlocks are in hiding. All we simpletons can muster the skill to do is define these pesky things we call words. Not the referent to the words. I didn't say that. The words, the terms, the symbols, those combined letters we call words.

If we go by the standard lexical definition of "planet," and write something like, "Mars is a dwarf planet compared to Jupiter," that could be interpreted such that "dwarf" serves as an adjective to describe "planet." I bet it's still even correct to regard Pluto as a planet under traditional lexical explanations, but officially recognized stipulative definitions tend to take precedence in their reflective fields, so much as we might wish for Pluto to be regarded as a planet, it's not, and even as the status of a dwarf planet, it's not a planet.

You use "possibilities" as though it can have no stipulative meaning, yet "logical possibility" refers not to that which you speak of when you talk of possibilities. Wonder why that is.

 

[untermensche]

What do you not get about the fact that humans define what a planet is but they do not define what is possible?

You're the one who thinks people have some magical power to define things.

I'm saying it is possible to define "planet" so that the Earth and Pluto are both planets.

Before there were humans there were possibilities.

There were no planets however.

You are the one unaware that you're making a category error.

I don't think so.

The arbitrary groupings humans create by definition are not real.

"Planets" as a group are not a real thing. They are an arbitrarily defined thing.

It is a stretch to say that the Earth and Jupiter are the same thing simply because they rotate around the same sun.

You use "possibilities" as though it can have no stipulative meaning, yet "logical possibility" refers not to that which you speak of when you talk of possibilities. Wonder why that is.

That is why I say they are not real possibilities.

They take the word "possibility" and twist it to mean something else.

They should talk about non-contradictory imaginings (mental masturbation), mostly an examination of grammar, and not talk of possibilities.

 

[fast]

There were no planets however.

The planet Earth predates humans. Not the word. Not the meaning. The referent.

 

[untermensche]

There were no planets however.

The planet Earth predates humans. Not the word. Not the meaning. The referent.

This unique satellite of the sun existed before humans.

But it didn't become one of several planets until there were humans.

 

[fast]

The planet Earth predates humans. Not the word. Not the meaning. The referent.

This unique satellite of the sun existed before humans.

But it didn't become one of several planets until there were humans.

The referent is one and the same. The thing you're referring to when you say "this unique satelellite of the sun" is the very same object I'm referring to when I say "the planet earth." What I'm saying is the object predates humans, not what the object is now called.

If a child isn't named until after she's born, it's still the case Allie was born. That she wasn't called Allie when born doesn't mean Allie wasn't born. The objection that the child had no name doesn't stand up. What's important is the referent to the name.

There was no one to name the celestial body Earth, but the object that is the referent of the name that came later predates not only our naming of it but us as well.

 

[untermensche]

"Planet" is a category. Not a specific entity.

An arbitrary, artificial, man-made category.