One for the loons.

[Age]

I OBVIOUSLY did not give a definition. I, instead, just answered the actual question you asked, obviously. Could you not comprehend this?

Could you define 'yes'?

Yes.

Ah, I see so it's just a mis-understanding. OK, my bad. Let me try again...

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

OBVIOUSLY this request should be clear to you. Since I am writing it in your language.

So, you want me to do what you obviously can not or will not do, is this correct?

[Skepdick]

So, you want me to do what you obviously can not or will not do, is this correct?

No. It is not correct.

That I haven't done something is obvious (mea culpa). That I can't or will not do something is not obvious.

Why are you making such assumptions?

[Age]

Generally philosophers take the same pragmatic view as you, and get slagged off as post-modernists for their pains.

I suspect (leaving aside nutters) the reason people keep coming back to the topic is because we seem to have quite an amount of working knowledge. If the foundations were actually as weak as they seem, you'd expect reality to change in strange and unpredictable ways - and I don't just mean the election of Boris Johnson as UK PM.

We run quite complex societies, with lots of co-operating elements. I think its in one of Jared Diamond's books were he invites folk to appreciate how orderly the world has become; you can travel to a distant land, and the locals won't immediately react to you by throwing spears at you - which is likely what they should have done a few hundred thousand years ago.

There is said to be still at least one parcel of land where the local inhabitants will react to intruders and throw spears at them to keep them away. Hopefully, these inhabitants are able to keep intruders away for a long time to come.

And, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".

But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.

The reason why there is so much misunderstanding, confusion, disagreement, disputing, and fighting is because we each individually have and use different definitions for the words we use to communicate with each other with.

[Age]

But there is NOT any actual evidence for either.

Well, there's the observed red shift, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that gravity is not observably making the universe collapse for starters.

There is NO actual evidence for what is beyond what is observed.

Well no; the evidence just is what you observe. It's up to you how you interpret it.

The general point you made here about people who are loonies also applies to those people who think that they have some proof that the Universe IS expanding and DID begin as well.

Think yer musta missed this bit:

First rule of philosophy: nobody else knows anything...

Second rule of philosophy: you don't know anything for certain either.

Uwot, you are still conversing with @"age". I am telling you, throwing aruments at him is like throwing a rubber ball against a brick wall: both just bounce back without any effect of any kind on the bouncing surface.

Remember, if you are "throwing" arguments, then, for them to "stick" they need to be sound and valid arguments.

Just "throwing" any old so called "argument" only has an effect on those who who are not open to ALL things.

If an alleged so called "argument" can be backed up and supported, then the one "throwing" that "argument" should be able to elaborate, clear up, and clarify questions and any and all misunderstanding posed to them.

If an "argument" can not be explained fully, and verified, then really is it an argument at all? Maybe the case is one is just throwing their own opinions, assumptions, and/or beliefs around?

We will have to wait and SEE.

[Age]

So, you want me to do what you obviously can not or will not do, is this correct?

No. It is not correct.

That I haven't done something is obvious (mea culpa). That I can't or will not do something is not obvious.

Why are you making such assumptions?

If it is not can not nor will not, then what is it?

[Skepdick]

If it is not can not nor will not, then what is it?

It's neither "can not" nor "will not". It's obvious that you assumed that.

Now back to the point.

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

[Eodnhoj7]

Justified true belief is just a variation of the trillema.

Justified= definition continuum
True= circular
Belief= assumed axioms

Unless you do everything in reverse. Start with some theorems, then look for some axioms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

If you view this from an epistemological lens, mathematics is foundationalism, reverse mathematics is coherentism.

Not going to argue against it, but still necessitates justified true belief as a variation of trillema.

[Age]

If it is not can not nor will not, then what is it?

It's neither "can not" nor "will not". It's obvious that you assumed that.

So what is it then?

If you say it is neither, then you must assume, believe, or know it is some thing else. So, again, what is it?

Or, can you or will you not answer this question also?

Now back to the point.

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

Again, you want me to do what you, yourself, can not nor will not do.

You claimed some thing previously. I asked you a clarifying question to see IF you could back up what you are saying. I am still waiting.

You then tried to digress by asking me how I define the words 'definition' and 'yes'. I asked what for? And again, I am still waiting.

How I define those two words has nothing at all to do with what I have been saying and pointing out, which is;
You claim; that the saying, "I know that I don't know anything.' sums up all of Philosophy.

Until you explain how you define the word 'philosophy' here, then what you propose is true and right is really nothing but worthless and useless words being expressed. Without any meaning, then what you are saying is really nothing at all.

[Skepdick]

If you say it is neither, then you must assume, believe, or know it is some thing else.

Yes. It something else.

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

[PTH]

And, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".

But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.

The reason why there is so much misunderstanding, confusion, disagreement, disputing, and fighting is because we each individually have and use different definitions for the words we use to communicate with each other with.

That could be part of it, sometimes.

But the world couldn't function if we didn't understand each other most of the time. I understand I can get a bus home. I understand that the bus wouldn't work if a bunch of people didn't know how to design and build one, and it comes to my stop because another bunch of people know they're going to get paid for running a service.

We can question pointlessly. Isn't that Wittgenstein's idea of a language game? Definition can be useful, and sometimes the problem is that the same word is being used to describe two different things. But words don't have a single meaning, and usually that doesn't matter. We usually understand each other quite well, without any need for definition.

[Age]

If you say it is neither, then you must assume, believe, or know it is some thing else.

Yes. It something else.

Okay.

[Skepdick]

Okay.

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

[Age]

And, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".

But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.

The reason why there is so much misunderstanding, confusion, disagreement, disputing, and fighting is because we each individually have and use different definitions for the words we use to communicate with each other with.

That could be part of it, sometimes.

But the world couldn't function if we didn't understand each other most of the time.

When you say "world", what do you actually mean?

What is it exactly that you say could not function if just human beings did not understand each other most of the time.

That is, if I understood you correctly when you said 'we'.

I understand I can get a bus home. I understand that the bus wouldn't work if a bunch of people didn't know how to design and build one, and it comes to my stop because another bunch of people know they're going to get paid for running a service.

Do they "know" this for certain?

Also, to me, I understand that if there were no buses and there were no human beings only doing things for money even, then the 'world' would keep functioning.

We, adult human beings, can generally understand what another is saying. But, without clarification we never know, for sure, what the "other" is actually saying AND meaning.

We can question pointlessly. Isn't that Wittgenstein's idea of a language game?

I do not know. I do not know what a 'Wittgenstein' is, nor what it actually means.

Definition can be useful, and sometimes the problem is that the same word is being used to describe two different things. But words don't have a single meaning, and usually that doesn't matter. We usually understand each other quite well, without any need for definition.

The most important word here, from my perspective is, 'usually'.

I think it will be discovered that the major reason human beings dispute among themselves and are confused about issues is down to the fact that people do NOT fully understand what "another" is saying, nor even fully understand what they, themselves, are actually saying/thinking and meaning within themselves.

The reason I ask so many clarifying questions in this forum is so that it can be seen just how many times "others" are incapable of, or just do not want to, clarify what it is that they are trying to say and mean.

Some will make up their own conclusions about why the people here generally will not clarify what they are actually talking.

Also, I have written hundreds of sentences in this forum in a way that human beings will read it assuming that I am saying and meaning one thing, but really I am saying and meaning some thing else, and some times I mean the exact opposite of what it was assumed I was saying.

If I am not asked clarifying questions, then "others" will just NEVER know what I actually mean.

Sure, we CAN know and understand what another is saying and meaning, but the Truth IS without clarification we really do NOT know, FOR SURE. So, without clarity, all we are really doing is just assuming/guessing what what we are actually saying and meaning. This obviously can then lead to confusion, which then can very easily lead to contradictions, confrontations, competion, contests and clashes about who is right and who is not, which can very quickly turn into disputes, disagreements, fights and wars.

Whereas just coming together peacefully to find out what it is that we agree on leads to peace and harmony, very simply, quickly, and easily I might add.

Doing this leads to understanding. Understanding what another is actually saying and meaning.

[Age]

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

Why?

[uwot]

The observance of red shift is not evidence of expansion.

That's exactly what it is Age. It's also evidence for explanations like 'tired light' and 'plasma redshift', even that the devil is trying to persuade us that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. There's lots of explanations for the evidence, it's just that some explanations are a bit crap.

The observance of red shift can be explained, without it necessarily meaning expansion.

The thing with evidence is that it is evidence for any explanation that is consistent with it. Physicists are very good at coming up with different explanations for exactly the same evidence, because they know perfectly well that no explanation we currently have explains everything.

The observance of blue shift also exists, which obviously contradicts expansion.

You really have to do the maths. A few dozen relatively local galaxies, that are blue shifted, do not contradict the hundreds of billions that are red shifted.

To me, there are NO rules of 'philosophy'.

I've noticed.

You may have missed the lesson on: Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

That was in my basic epistemology class 30 years ago. I was there, me old china.

And, what you observe a word to mean is NOT necessarily how "others" observe it to mean.

Ya don't say. When Samuel Johnson complied his first dictionary of English, he travelled all over the British Isles to find out how words were used in practise, precisely because anyone who isn't a blithering idiot knows that words are context dependent.

But anyway, and contrary to your belief, there is some thing that I know for certain.

We've been here before Age. If it ain't anything said by Parmenides or Descartes, your name in history is assured.