Please see specific replies below. ------------------> Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>: > >>Understanding requires something more then mere 'hearsay'. -------------> True. > > Otherwise you get the classical paradox of the knower. ----------------> Not being much of a classicist, the reference escapes me. Where does the paradox initially rear its ugly head? > > I know that "the compressor shorted to ground" is false. > > Yet because I know "the compressor shorted to ground" is false, the > statement, "I know that 'the compressor shorted to ground' is false" is > itself a true statement. --------> True. > > It can be both true and false because the "truth value" of the > statement, "I know that "the compressor shorted to ground" is false" is > not itself grounded in truth, but only in hearsay. -------> At best, unclear. What is the "it" that can be both true and false? If it refers to a statement (or proposition), then "it" cannot be both T and F. No statement can be both T and F. > > Or maybe I don't understand? -------------------> It's certainly logically possible. Or is this like the pilot who was > electrocuted mid-air because he wasn't grounded? ---------------> Or as my Ancient Greeek Philosophy professor wrote on the first page of my test in 1971: "Is this some sort of a joke?" (A joke is not a philosophical account. Although it may illustrate a philosophical truth .... or falsity. But not both simultaneously and in the same respect.) Walter O. MUN > > Not-self to other self, > Logical Tyro, Jr. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html