3 ms·

So, you no longer claim that > by default, it is untrue but instead that by default it is effectively untrue? And by that you mean that we can act in practica

So, you no longer claim that > by default, it is untrue but instead that by default it is effectively untrue? And by that you mean that we can act in practical matters act as if it is untrue, even though we do not actually know whether that is the case?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I meant what I said, and also what you said is correct, too. Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: untrue, effectively untrue, practically untrue, and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all.
- calderknight 3y ago
  You have said two separate things on the same matter. So, just to clear out any ambiguity, could you please clarify for me which is your claim: That we should assume these things to be false, or merely effectively false?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I think the answer to that is made clear by the following passage, which I'll reformat and expand to include your latest desired semantics: > Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: > - untrue, > - effectively untrue, > - practically untrue, > - something we assume to be untrue, > - and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, > for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all :) At this point, you seem to be coming up with new ways of wording that the teapot and fighting staircase theories are untrue, so if you come up with more, simply add them to the above 5 item list! And just to be clear, I'm not claiming anything myself, merely examining and judging the claims of those who lend any credence to the totally unsupported teapot or fighting staircase theories, and pointing out that the results of that examination and judgement don't look good for 'em.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      You say that the teapot and the fighting staircase are equally untrue. But you don't say whether they are untrue. You could hold these two positions simultaneously without there being any contradiction: * they are both equally untrue. * they are both true
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I think perhaps you misunderstand: because each theory has zero evidence, each has zero truth to it (however you want to word "truth", maybe pick from the above list). Because they both have zero truth, they are equally untrue, meaning an equal amount of untrue: zero in both cases. Turns out there's no contradiction, and no truth to either!
        calderknight 3y ago
        OK, that's what I had thought you meant! But that position isn't found anywhere in the Wikipedia article. Also, what if two contradictory propositions each have zero evidence, are they then both untrue?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > OK, that's what I had thought you meant! But that position isn't found anywhere in the Wikipedia article. It actually is! I even quoted it a couple times up in this thread :) Maybe you're confused over effectively true vs practically true vs true vs. etc, but that's just semantics, they all mean the same thing! > Also, what if two contradictory propositions each have zero evidence, are they then both untrue? It depends, can you give details (what are the specific propositions)? For example, Russell's teapot explains when the "contradiction" is between the teapot existing without evidence vs. not existing
        calderknight 3y ago
        Practically untrue and untrue don't mean the same thing. You could argue that they could be treated as if they mean the same thing (in some limited scope), but that is different to them meaning the same thing, and, since such an argument is not presented in the Wikipedia page (rather, a contrary position is presented by Russell in the second quotation on that page[0]) you would have to make that argument yourself. [0] He makes an explicit distinction between what he ought to call himself if being purely logical and what he practically is (an agnostic and an atheist, respectively).

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I meant what I said, and also what you said is correct, too. Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: untrue, effectively untrue, practically untrue, and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all.

calderknight 3y ago
You have said two separate things on the same matter. So, just to clear out any ambiguity, could you please clarify for me which is your claim: That we should assume these things to be false, or merely effectively false?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I think the answer to that is made clear by the following passage, which I'll reformat and expand to include your latest desired semantics: > Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: > - untrue, > - effectively untrue, > - practically untrue, > - something we assume to be untrue, > - and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, > for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all :) At this point, you seem to be coming up with new ways of wording that the teapot and fighting staircase theories are untrue, so if you come up with more, simply add them to the above 5 item list! And just to be clear, I'm not claiming anything myself, merely examining and judging the claims of those who lend any credence to the totally unsupported teapot or fighting staircase theories, and pointing out that the results of that examination and judgement don't look good for 'em.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    You say that the teapot and the fighting staircase are equally untrue. But you don't say whether they are untrue. You could hold these two positions simultaneously without there being any contradiction: * they are both equally untrue. * they are both true
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I think perhaps you misunderstand: because each theory has zero evidence, each has zero truth to it (however you want to word "truth", maybe pick from the above list). Because they both have zero truth, they are equally untrue, meaning an equal amount of untrue: zero in both cases. Turns out there's no contradiction, and no truth to either!
      - calderknight 3y ago
        OK, that's what I had thought you meant! But that position isn't found anywhere in the Wikipedia article. Also, what if two contradictory propositions each have zero evidence, are they then both untrue?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > OK, that's what I had thought you meant! But that position isn't found anywhere in the Wikipedia article. It actually is! I even quoted it a couple times up in this thread :) Maybe you're confused over effectively true vs practically true vs true vs. etc, but that's just semantics, they all mean the same thing! > Also, what if two contradictory propositions each have zero evidence, are they then both untrue? It depends, can you give details (what are the specific propositions)? For example, Russell's teapot explains when the "contradiction" is between the teapot existing without evidence vs. not existing
        calderknight 3y ago
        Practically untrue and untrue don't mean the same thing. You could argue that they could be treated as if they mean the same thing (in some limited scope), but that is different to them meaning the same thing, and, since such an argument is not presented in the Wikipedia page (rather, a contrary position is presented by Russell in the second quotation on that page[0]) you would have to make that argument yourself. [0] He makes an explicit distinction between what he ought to call himself if being purely logical and what he practically is (an agnostic and an atheist, respectively).