I need to watch the actual logical equation a few more times. I'm having a hard time with this one or maybe it's because I am running on the treadmill at the same time I am watching lol.
Yeah, that brings up another interesting point: what's the relationship between all verifiable statements and all misinterperetable statements, and if more statements are misinterperetable than verifiable, should we misinterpret every statement in order to maximize our probability of being potentially correct?
For the fourth version (the example that had been hard to find) ,think about that: If all players are rational and the one shot prisonner dilemma is played by those players,then the suboptimal outcome will be choosen.
Ayer seems to have had a poor understanding of what it means to be analytic. The basic idea of induction requires, either expressly or implicitly, an assertion about a given observation (or a basic statement of fact) which justifies making a generalization about it. However making such an assertion is by no means analytic for the simple reason that the concept of observation, by itself, does not entail anything with respect to generalization.
No no, everything is fine: Ayer considers any assertion of observation a _synthetic_ "empirical propositions" - just as you write. Ayer is the last champion of the analytic>
I need to watch the actual logical equation a few more times. I'm having a hard time with this one or maybe it's because I am running on the treadmill at the same time I am watching lol.
Yeah, that brings up another interesting point: what's the relationship between all verifiable statements and all misinterperetable statements, and if more statements are misinterperetable than verifiable, should we misinterpret every statement in order to maximize our probability of being potentially correct?
For the fourth version (the example that had been hard to find) ,think about that:
If all players are rational and the one shot prisonner dilemma is played by those players,then the suboptimal outcome will be choosen.
Ayer seems to have had a poor understanding of what it means to be analytic. The basic idea of induction requires, either expressly or implicitly, an assertion about a given observation (or a basic statement of fact) which justifies making a generalization about it. However making such an assertion is by no means analytic for the simple reason that the concept of observation, by itself, does not entail anything with respect to generalization.
No no, everything is fine: Ayer considers any assertion of observation a _synthetic_ "empirical propositions" - just as you write. Ayer is the last champion of the analytic>
At 44:00, did you mean to write sigma?
Yeah, should definitely have been Σ and not B.
Balls
What if True Reality is completely different from our rational imposition of our human truth?
Someone please tell me how do I get in touch with Prof. Bonevac.
Bonevac@austin.utexas.edu
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you Professor