Learned Hand Finally Gets There

_{Barry Arrington

September 14, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Who says internet combox discussions are never fruitful? After almost two weeks of back and forth, Learned Hand has finally come around on the infallibility of the law of identity.

LH before: I cannot therefore be logically, absolutely certain of anything—not even that A=A.

LH today: Defining A as equal to A is defining A as equal to A; the proposition is not fallible if the only metric is its own definition.

Now if we could only convince him that he does not have to doubt whether he is Mount Everest.

Comments

SB: First, you lied and said that I offered no ideas. LH
Did I say that you offered no ideas? I don’t see that comment in this thread, but maybe I missed something. If so I apologize. You have offered ideas, and I appreciate the effort. I think they were not very good ones, and you don’t seem to have found them worth developing.
I take you back to this comment:
I assert only that you, SB, and others have failed to articulate any way that we can know a proposition infallibly.
StephenB_{September 19, 2015
September
09
Sep
19
19
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

SB:
My comment isn't about my attempt to explain how I am certain. It is about your attempt to show how you are not certain. Your attempt to make LH the same person as GW is flat out insane, just as I said. It doesn't even come close to working, precisely because the law of identity will not permit it.
If none of this ends up providing some kind of guidance we can use to solve moral problems, in practice, then how can it prevent the supposedly downfall of society that is claimed tol occur in its absence? Most importantly, how does it represent an explanation for the growth of moral knowledge?Popperian_{September 19, 2015
September
09
Sep
19
19
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

How do you know that an error is an error?
How do we detect errors? We attempt to take all of our current, best theories seriously, for the purpose of criticism. Do they solve problems purport solve? Do they conflict with each other, themselves or with observations? Criticism of Inductivism isn't just limited to naive assumption that the future will resemble the past. That misses the more fundamental misconception that the content of theories are somehow mechanically derived or extrapolated from experience, which would be an authoritative source. No one has explained how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. All observations are themselves theory laden. As such, we start out with a problem to solve, conjecture theories about how the world works, in reality, that would allow us to solve that problem, then criticize those theories and discard errors we find. So, we start out expecting them to contain errors, at least to some degree, because they start out as guesses. We find theories false, tentatively, because future observations could cause us to revise them. Not to mention those observations are themselves based on other theories, etc., which we might discover good criticisms of. Even then, we may keep theories around even when we know they contain errors to some degree. For example, the theory that "all swans are white", which is false, is preferred to the theory that "all swans have a color" because it contains more content that can be found wrong. Again, being a fallibilist means being fallible about fallibilism. This means we might be infallible, at least in at least some spheres. But, fundamentally, criticism is more of a attitude, not a prescription. Specifics about how to find errors are themselves conjectured ideas that we criticize. We can make progress on how to detect errors.Popperian_{September 19, 2015
September
09
Sep
19
19
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Popperian, First, my criticism is that it’s unclear how anyhow can be certain that they are not George Washington. I’ve yet to hear an explanation of how they could, in practice. Isn’t that odd? And predictable? (In fact, something we actually predicted.) As much as they rely on infallible certainty being a trivial thing to establish, they are furiously reluctant to actually show how one might go about establishing it. My assumption is that they just don’t care very much; establishing it is not the goal. It's not a conversation about ideas to BA; it's a chance to award himself honors and heap abuse on outsiders. (SB is trying harder to have a discussion, but he also eventually chooses invective over actually presenting an argument.) I suspect also that at the end of the day, the answer is that they feel very certain (just as we do) that they aren’t George Washington. And since that feeling of certainty underlies beliefs that are very important to them, such as moral propositions, they aren’t going to start seriously questioning it. The results might be unacceptable. In particular, they might have to wonder if the dirty liar people weren’t right about infallibility being a hard thing to establish in the first place. Building the wall is a way to avoid ever confronting the basis of their belief in their own infallibility. It keeps the doubts out.Learned Hand_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

SB, First, you lied and said that I offered no ideas. Did I say that you offered no ideas? I don’t see that comment in this thread, but maybe I missed something. If so I apologize. You have offered ideas, and I appreciate the effort. I think they were not very good ones, and you don’t seem to have found them worth developing. Second, after being caught in the lie, you said that my ideas (the ones I allegedly didn’t have) “assumed” infallibility. That too, is a false statement, though it may simply be a product of your ignorance, since you don’t know the difference between assuming infallibility and knowing infallibly. I meant that your arguments for how you could know that you are infallible only prove that proposition if you could know those arguments were not in error. The argument you were making was circular. I can’t find the comment in question, though, so maybe my memory is in error. Do you mean here that you weren’t assuming infallibility because you know that you’re infallible? That doesn’t escape the problem of circularity. You falsely claim that I didn’t demonstrate infallible knowledge. I truthfully claim that I did demonstrate infallible knowledge. Are you absolutely certain that we are not both right? Please explain your answer. I deny that you demonstrated a basis for knowing that your reasoning is infallible. No, I’m not absolutely certain of that, because of course I could be in error. Obviously. In keeping with that point, I say you are lying when you claim not to be certain that you are not Napoleon, or George Washington, or Moses. And you do so without explaining how it’s possible to be infallibly certain; for example, as I’ve said before, there are those who assert that all existence is an illusion and that we are all one consciousness, blah blah blah. I think it’s a silly philosophy, but how do we establish infallibly that it’s wrong? (This specific example may fall under cogito ergo sum, which as I’ve said is something I’m not certain I can’t be certain about.) The proposition A = A is infallibly true only in the context of the definition itself. But if A represents Learned Hand and B represents Moses, you are no longer certain that A = A. Yes. Because once we’re outside of the tautology, we can’t just define the proposition to be true. We have to rely on senses and reasoning that we know can be flawed, even if neither of us thinks they actually are flawed in this example. How, for example, do I infallibly establish that Hypothetical Hippie #1 is wrong when he says that we’re all one person, dude, and like, that means you’re me and I’m you and we’re all Moses? If the answer is that we apply these “principles of right reason,” then we’re assuming the conclusion. If the answer is that we can’t escape that circularity because there’s no possible external proof of the principles, then we’ve got axioms: things we treat as true, without needing to (or being able to) claim that we have infallibly knowledge of their truth. The proposition is infallibly true, in your judgment, only if it is not applied for its intended purpose, namely to show that identities and things in the real world are what they are and nothing else. Why does its purpose matter? What human beings want to use it for is irrelevant to whether we have infallible faculties or not. How do you know that A = A even in the limited context of the definition itself. Where is the rational argument to support your only claim to absolute certainty? How can you prove that you know the one thing you claim to know for sure? Because the statement is wholly self-contained. Once we’re operating in a universe that contains more than just A, and more metrics than just A, failures of reasoning and perception become relevant. They aren’t in the tautology because we define them away.Learned Hand_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Popperian
It’s all about error.
How do you know that an error is an error?StephenB_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

StephanB My point is, and always has been, that you're deferring to an authoritative source of some sort, such as experience, or God, etc. Namely, it's unclear how you can infallibly identify anything as an A, in practice. So it's unclear how the law of identity can get you where you want to go, in practice. The same problem comes into play in regards to some objective source of moral knowledge. No one has explained how they can actually infallibly identify or infallibly interpret any such source, so they could apply in in practice. One must first use reason to determine if they will defer to the supposedly infallible source, which is what one would do even if they did not believe in it in the first place. What alternative do we have? From the same article....
Fallibilism has practical consequences for the methodology and administration of science, and in government, law, education, and every aspect of public life. The philosopher Karl Popper elaborated on many of these. He wrote:5
The question about the sources of our knowledge . . . has always been asked in the spirit of: ‘What are the best sources of our knowledge—the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?’ I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist—no more than ideal rulers—and that all ‘sources’ are liable to lead us into error at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: ‘How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?’
It’s all about error. We used to think that there was a way to organize ourselves that would minimize errors. This is an infallibilist chimera that has been part of every tyranny since time immemorial, from the “divine right of kings” to centralized economic planning. And it is implemented by many patterns of thought that protect misconceptions in individual minds, making someone blind to evidence that he isn’t Napoleon, or making the scientific crank reinterpret peer review as a conspiracy to keep falsehoods in place.
The law of identity is not a source that we "can and must turn to, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal" Is simply an extremely hard to vary explanation. There is nothing special about it in comparison with any other ideas, because it is not an ideal source.Popperian_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Barry
And responding to his more insane spewings only dignifies that which deserves only derision. And, as his comment at 43 demonstrates, it leads to the “pig effect”: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn’t do a bit of good. And it annoys the pig.
Barry, popperian's response had to set some kind of record for deluded denialism (a little alliteration there). These people will say anything--and I mean--anything.StephenB_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

popperian
Apparently, no one can explain how they are certain. And we’re “liars”?
Again, you prove that you not even in the game. My comment isn't about my attempt to explain how I am certain. It is about your attempt to show how you are not certain. Your attempt to make LH the same person as GW is flat out insane, just as I said. It doesn't even come close to working, precisely because the law of identity will not permit it.StephenB_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
Popperian, your response is insane. I should not have even bothered to critique your first response.
I thought the same thing and even started to write a comment suggesting as much, but decided not to. "But shun profane and vain babblings." II Tim. 2:16. The line between genuine argument and profane and vain babblings is one we must watch for constantly on these pages, especially when we are dealing with such as Popperian, who fancies himself an intellectual of the first order but who in reality is a babbling idiot. And responding to his more insane spewings only dignifies that which deserves only derision. And, as his comment at 43 demonstrates, it leads to the "pig effect": Never try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't do a bit of good. And it annoys the pig.Barry Arrington_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

So, when pressed with how you know, your not actually certain either. Check. I'm merely "insane". Check. Apparently, no one can explain how they are certain. And we're "liars"?Popperian_{September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Popperian, your response is insane. I should not have even bothered to critique your first response. I certainly am not going to clean up your follow up.StephenB_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

StephanB:
Do you mean this one:
First, my criticism is that it's unclear how anyhow can be certain that they are not George Washington. I've yet to hear an explanation of how they could, in practice. Second, the explanation I gave was a bad criticism of the idea that Learned Hand was not actually Learned Hand. You can't be certain, but it's a bad explanation, so I discard it. But that's not my criticism. See above. I wrote:
What I will get from Barry and company is “that’s crazy”…..
StephanB:
Just because I didn’t happen to include you on LH’s collection of wackos doesn’t mean that you don’t belong there.
You're making my point for me.
First, George Washington’s clone isn’t George Washington. Second, giving LH’s mug to George Washington’s clone doesn’t affect LH’s identity or the clone’s identity.
George Washington was abducted and replaced by a clone. The real GW goes into stasis, while his clone, with GW's memories, lives out the rest of this life thinking he is the original GW. He is mistaken as well.
Third, George Washington’s clone is no longer GW’s clone if it has LH’s memories.
First, the clone has George Washington’s memories, not LH. Are you suggesting that would make him really GW? Second, a clone created from the DNA of GW wouldn't have anyone's memories, yet would still be his clone. Perhaps you mean replicating an exact copy in what is typically portrayed in a transporter accident in science fiction? Even then, their experiences would start to diverge after the replication took place.
Fourth, If LH has been replaced, then he doesn’t exist, which means that he no longer has an identity to merge.
Nothing I've described indicates that the original LH doesn't exist. Perhaps he just went into stasis so he could receive the appearance and memories of someone else? Again, it's unclear how LH or any one else, can be certain that this did not occur. However, it's a bad explanation, which we discard. But, by all means, anyone can chime in to explain how they could be certain this it did not occur, in practice. Anyone? Barry? You're not a "Liar" are you?Popperian_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

popperian
So, Are you saying it’s not a good criticism? if not, why?
Do you mean this one:
For example, couldn’t some advanced alien civilization have abducted George Washington, replaced him with a clone, put him in stasis for 200 odd years, abducted LH made GW look like LH and replaced his memories of that of LH, put him in LH’s place?

What I will get from Barry and company is “that’s crazy”..... So, Are you saying it’s not a good criticism? if not, why?
Just because I didn't happen to include you on LH's collection of wackos doesn't mean that you don't belong there. First, George Washington's clone isn't George Washington. Second, giving LH's mug to George Washington's clone doesn't affect LH's identity or the clone's identity. Third, George Washington's clone is no longer GW's clone if it has LH's memories. Fourth, If LH has been replaced, then he doesn't exist, which means that he no longer has an identity to merge.StephenB_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Pop, do you think of yourself as all super-duper smart, intellectual and sophisticated when you ask idiotic questions like that? You shouldn’t.
Should have wrote:
So, when [pressed] with [how] you know, you’re not actually certain either. Check. And we’re ”liars”?
Also, you're confusing good criticism with criticism that came from an authoritative source. Criticism is either good or bad, regardless of where it comes from. I could be an idiot and still come up with a good criticism that stands on its own for being, well, good criticism. This is possible because ideas start out as guesses, including what might be a good criticism of an idea. IOW whether I'm "super-duper smart" or "intellectual and sophisticated" isn't really relevant. What is relevant is whether this is a good criticism. Everything else is a distraction. So, Are you saying it's not a good criticism? if not, why?Popperian_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

So, when press with you you know, you're not actually certain either. Check. And we're" liars"?Popperian_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Popperian:
How is anyone certain they are not George Washington? Can someone explain to me how that works, in practice?
Pop, do you think of yourself as all super-duper smart, intellectual and sophisticated when you ask idiotic questions like that? You shouldn't.Barry Arrington_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Remember onlookers, this man is not certain that he is not George Washington. This man is not certain that he is not Napoleon.
How is anyone certain they are not George Washington? Can someone explain to me how that works, in practice? For example, couldn't some advanced alien civilization have abducted George Washington, replaced him with a clone, put him in stasis for 200 odd years, abducted LH made GW look like LH and replaced his memories of that of LH, put him in LH's place? What I will get from Barry and company is "that's crazy". But we can be more specific than that. Why GW, why LH, why the swap at all? Why swap now, etc. It's not just "Crazy", it's a bad explanation. Another example? I'm not a Solipsist merly because it disagrees with my intuition or because it sounds "crazy". Should we attempt to take it seriously, in that it's true in reality and that all observations should conform to it, Solipsism presents an implicit theory that there are dream-like aspects of myself that act like autonomous conscious beings which surprise me, have different personalities and even disagree with me on Solipsism. And there object-like facets of myself that obey laws of physics like facets even though, as a non-physicist, I can’t do the math that describes their behavior. Not to mention that these supposed people-like facets of myself discover new things about myself (physics like facets) all the time, which I wasn’t aware of previously. However, observations still fit this theory, which means they would still "support" solipsism. So, why shouldn't we be Solipsists? The key difference is that Solipsism makes no attempt to explain *why* object-like facets of one’s self would obey laws of physics-like facets of one’s self, etc. No explanation is presented at all. Instead, the claim is based on a supposed philosophical limitation that we cannot know anything exists outside of our own minds. In other words, Solipsism consists of the theory of realty with the added exception of it all being elaborate facets of the internal self. It merely attempts to explain away the currently tenable theory of reality. Despite portraying itself as anti-reality, solipsism is actually a convoluted elaboration of reality, which can be discarded. It's a bad explanation, which I discard.Popperian_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand
Because the proposition (A = A) exists in an artificially constructed environment: we define it as having no metric other than the definition itself. Since the proposition is limited to its own truth, I think it’s fair to say that the question of fallibility doesn’t apply.
So this is your position: The proposition A = A is infallibly true only in the context of the definition itself. But if A represents Learned Hand and B represents Moses, you are no longer certain that A = A. The proposition is infallibly true, in your judgment, only if it is not applied for its intended purpose, namely to show that identities and things in the real world are what they are and nothing else. Just so that you will know, the purpose of saying that A = A is to show that any A is equal to A, which means that you (A) must be who you are (Learned Hand), and cannot be (B) Moses. But your position is that you can be certain that A = A only if A doesn't represent anything, which defeats the purpose of saying A = A. At this point, I am tempted to say that you are the most irrational person ever to post at this site. However, that would be a reckless statement because eigenstate, Zachriel, and all the other eliminative materialists are equally irrational and dishonest. And, of course, the big question remains: How do you know that A = A even in the limited context of the definition itself. Where is the rational argument to support your only claim to absolute certainty? How can you prove that you know the one thing you claim to know for sure?StephenB_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

LH
I can’t think of any answer you offered that did not assume infallibility in order to demonstrate that you have infallible faculties. If you disagree, I’d appreciate a reference to where you offered such reasoning.
So much deception in two sentences. First, you lied and said that I offered no ideas. Second, after being caught in the lie, you said that my ideas (the ones I allegedly didn't have) "assumed" infallibility. That too, is a false statement, though it may simply be a product of your ignorance, since you don't know the difference between assuming infallibility and knowing infallibly. In the context of all that mendacity, you managed to avoid the substance of the question: You falsely claim that I didn't demonstrate infallible knowledge. I truthfully claim that I did demonstrate infallible knowledge. Are you absolutely certain that we are not both right? Please explain your answer. In keeping with that point, I say you are lying when you claim not to be certain that you are not Napoleon, or George Washington, or Moses. You say you are telling the truth. Are you absolutely certain that we cannot both be right?StephenB_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand How do you know that you don't know?Andre_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

SB:
Remember onlookers, this man is not certain that he is not George Washington. This man is not certain that he is not Napoleon. This man is not certain that a slice of pizza weighs less than the whole pie.
LH:
That’s not reasoning. That’s substituting jeers for reasoning.
Wait a minute. Simply re-stating some of the positions you have taken is a "jeer"? If someone restated any of the positions I've taken I am pretty sure I would not think they are jeering at me. What does it say about your positions that you consider merely accurately restating them to be a jeer?Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

LH:
BA . . .assiduously . . . avoids any conversation that would require stating and discussing his own beliefs.
LH's comment prompted me to check my stats. In the nearly 10 years since March 2, 2006 I have published 730 original articles and posted 3,462 comments here at UD. I don't know what the real numbers are, but assuming an average of 100 words per article (it is probably higher) and 25 words per comment, that is about 160,000 words. I am awfully garrulous for a person who assiduously avoids conversations that would require me to state and discuss my beliefs.Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

LH
It’s interesting how much time BA spends attacking messengers, and how assiduously he avoids any conversation that would require stating and discussing his own beliefs.
Lying messengers deserve to be attacked.StephenB_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Bedtime for LH, and I'm travelling tomorrow. I'll try to show up for scheduled abuse and invective on Friday. Perhaps by then BA will have found time to stand up some ideas of his own for discussion. I would wager not.Learned Hand_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Are you absolutely certain that I didn’t articulate such a way? That’s funny. I am absolutely certain that I did articulate such a way. Are you absolutely certain that one of us is wrong? Please explain your answer. I can’t think of any answer you offered that did not assume infallibility in order to demonstrate that you have infallible faculties. If you disagree, I’d appreciate a reference to where you offered such reasoning. Remember onlookers, this man is not certain that he is not George Washington. This man is not certain that he is not Napoleon. This man is not certain that a slice of pizza weighs less than the whole pie. That’s not reasoning. That’s substituting jeers for reasoning. It’s a lot easier, isn’t it? What’s the process for being certain that a slice of pizza weighs less than the whole that excludes any possible error? BA has retreated into the dark little hole of analytic propositions that are self-referentially defined to be true… but this is a proposition about the physical world. Neither one of you seems to have much to say here other than that you’re so obviously right there’s no need to explain why you’re right. There are only two ways to escape criticism of your ideas: be infallible, and hide them from sight. I think you have only achieved one.Learned Hand_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

I will repeat my question from comment 1. How do you know the proposition is not fallible? Because the proposition exists in an artificially constructed environment: we define it as having no metric other than the definition itself. Since the proposition is limited to its own truth, I think it’s fair to say that the question of fallibility doesn’t apply. Which, as I said elsewhere, isolates human infallibility to the most trivial exercises. If we define it to be true, and our definition is the only metric, it’s true. But what about external truths? What about the moral truths that underlie this line of discussion? How can they be known infallibly? You don’t seem to know; you spit at the messenger whenever the question arises. See your comment at 25, for example: a simple question. What’s the answer? Shut up! Shut the conversation down! Make it about the questioner! Personalize it! Why, KF might say it was downright Alinskyite. Where are your ideas, BA? Where’s the reasoning behind your purportedly unassailable conclusions?Learned Hand_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

LH
I assert only that you, SB, and others have failed to articulate any way that we can know a proposition infallibly.
Are you absolutely certain that I didn't articulate such a way? That's funny. I am absolutely certain that I did articulate such a way. Are you absolutely certain that one of us is wrong? Please explain your answer. Remember onlookers, this man is not certain that he is not George Washington. This man is not certain that he is not Napoleon. This man is not certain that a slice of pizza weighs less than the whole pie. This same person was once certain that he couldn't be certain of anything, but now he is uncertain. I think he means that he is certain that he can't be certain, until pressed, at which time he becomes uncertain.StephenB_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

LH:
How do you determine whether morality is “absurd”?
Yes, yes LH. We understand that you want to hold out the possibility that it might not be evil under some circumstances to (1) torture infants for pleasure; or (2) kill little boys and girls, chop their tiny bodies into pieces and sell the pieces like meat. Oh, wait a minute; you actually do think (2) is not evil. Hmmm. Do you think the first might have something to do with the second? I do.Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand wants to quote Carpathian from the other thread. Well let's test that. The proposition that Carpathian was defending was that eigenstate was correct when he said LH meant the same thing by these two statements: LH1: “I cannot . . . be . . . certain of anything” LH2: “the proposition is not fallible” You tell us LH. Is Carpathian correct when he says you meant the same thing when you said you could not be certain of anything and when you said you were certain the proposition was true?Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply