ellauri096.html on line 138: Very elegant! But if joint inconsistency is rationally tolerable, why do these philosophers bother to offer solutions? Why is it not rational to believe each of (1)–(4), despite their joint inconsistency?
ellauri096.html on line 140: Kyburg might answer that there is a scale effect. Although the dull pressure of joint inconsistency is tolerable when diffusely distributed over a large set of propositions, the pain of contradiction becomes unbearable as the set gets smaller (Knight 2002). And indeed, paradoxes are always represented as a small set of propositions.
ellauri096.html on line 146: The preface paradox pressures Kyburg to extend his tolerance of joint inconsistency to the acceptance of contradictions (Sorensen 2001, 156–158). Consider a logic student who is required to pick one hundred truths from a mixed list of tautologies and contradictions. Although the modest student believes each of his answers, A1,A2,…,A100
ellauri096.html on line 287: Since the surprise test paradox can also be formulated in terms of rational belief, there will be parallel adjustments for what we ought to believe. We are criticized for failures to believe the logical consequences of what we believe and criticized for believing propositions that conflict with each other. Anyone who meets these ideals of completeness and consistency will be unable to believe a range of consistent propositions that are accessible to other complete and consistent thinkers. In particular, they will not be able to believe propositions attributing specific errors to them, and propositions that entail these off-limit propositions.
ellauri096.html on line 295: Socrates could regain consistency by downgrading his meta-knowledge to the status of a belief. If he believes he knows nothing, then he naturally wishes to remedy his ignorance by asking about everything. This rationale is accepted throughout the early dialogues. But when we reach the Meno, one of his interlocutors has an epiphany. After Meno receives the standard treatment from Socrates about the nature of virtue, Meno discerns a conflict between Socratic ignorance and Socratic inquiry (Meno 80d, in Cooper 1997). How would Socrates recognize the correct answer even if Meno gave it?
ellauri097.html on line 483: It really is an issue of consistency of worldviews here, as you can see. But I think a more precise understanding of the teleological argument and the is-ought fallacy helps us to answer the original challenge the caller had.
ellauri153.html on line 311: 6.4: A consistency proof
ellauri153.html on line 358: “God is omnipotent” is true at game history w if and only if God has a winning strategy in the justice-of-God game G. Tässähän se tapahtuu se suuri lässähdys. Muka omnipotentti jumala saa häthätää saatanasta matin loppupeleissä. Matkan varrella isokyrpäinen valas voi syödä vaikka kaikki sen nappulat paizi kurkon, joka jää viimeisenä laudalle. Aika lohduttavaa sen muulle tiimille. One can make a few clarifying remarks about the structure of the game. The form of the game is relatively simple: it’s an ordinary extended-form perfect information game. tuskinpa Jobilla oli täydellistä informaatiota pelitilanteesta tai edes pelin säännöistä, muista pelaajista puhumattakaan. Aika isoja informaatiojoukkoja oli niiden kalloissa. Sitäpaizi ei luonnossa pelaajat siirrä vuoronperään, vaan koko ajan, niinkuin differentiaalipeleissä. . The goal is here not to go deeply into technical details, but to construct an übersichtlich representation for the theological grammar of biblical stories and to highlight the uses of terms like “good” and “omnipotent” in them. The game or model can then be used as a simplified fragment that can be projected onto, contrasted with and used to interpret biblical stories. The point of this clarification is to highlight the grammar of the divine properties “good” and “omnipotent” within the logic of the struggle myth, and to get the consistency of {God is good, God is omnipotent, There is chaotic evil} as in the Book of Job. The argument needs two assumptions. First, the games between God, humans and creation are genuine dialogues. Paskanmarjat, ei nää ole edes mitään signaling gameja, puhumattakaan dialogipeleistä. Olis kannattanut lukea mun väitöskirja Dialogue Games, siinä on oikeeta sananvaihtoa. The players answer each other and thus have to take turns in making moves and participating in them. Then the game of Job and the struggle against chaos is in extended form to represent the sequence of the debate, and its resolution gives the drama of the fight against kid chaos. Second, the properties of God like “omnipotent” and “good” are defined against the background of Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos. This redefinition builds on both James’ reinterpretation of the properties of God in terms of religious practices, and also of Job’s new world of faith in the encounter. Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos are modelled in the game, so such properties of God as “good” and “omnipotent” are then internal to the game. Missä kohtaa Jopilla on tässä jotain pelivaraa? Montako valintaruutua Jobilla edes on: Marise-älä marise, ja Pyllistä-älä pyllistä. Siinä kaikki. Jotta jumalan tiimi voittaisi, sen pitää ensin marista ja sit pyllistää. Nain on meidankin elamassamme! Marise mitä mariset, mut muista pyllistää!
ellauri153.html on line 379: the second, a consistency proof with chaotic evil does not amount to a PSR-based theodicy. If one
ellauri153.html on line 425: metatheories that appeal to sufficient reasons. The consistency proof builds on logical description of
ellauri153.html on line 455: descriptions of the interactions and plots of the story. Now we can build the consistency proof:
ellauri153.html on line 531: The problem of evil can be solved or dissolved with consistency proofs, defences and theodicies.
ellauri153.html on line 532: All theodicies are defences and all defences are consistency proofs. The difference between a
ellauri153.html on line 534: reasons and a consistency proof does not necessarily depend on theodicism. Theodicism can be
ellauri153.html on line 537: definition that defines anti-theodicy as a rejection of theodicies and consistency proofs. I take the
ellauri153.html on line 538: first approach as a matter of definition, but I also argue that rejections of theodicies and consistency
ellauri153.html on line 540: logically prior critique of theodicism. Theodicies, defences and consistency proofs can similarly be
ellauri159.html on line 1277: You tend to be good at organizing ideas and weeding out logical inconsistency. You have a natural propensity for clarifying the complex. But you will likely need to make a conscious effort to include the personal dimensions of a topic. (Well I do, no two ways about that!) During revision, look for places where you can add examples or anecdotes, if appropriate, to illustrate the facts. This engages the reader and brings theoretical principles to life. (I do this too, lotsa images and anecdotes and all!)
ellauri213.html on line 182: often be ineffective. Inconsistency and change of mood,
ellauri243.html on line 642: That´s one reason most incredibly successful people set a goal, and then focus all their attention on the creating and following a process designed to achieve that goal. The goal still exists, but their real focus is on what they do today. And making sure that do it again tomorrow. Because consistency matters: What you do every day is who you are. Like take a shit. And who you will become. A piece of shit.
ellauri302.html on line 66: Mrs. Warren cherishes no delusions about her dubious profession, — If Yekel and his wife (in Ash's play) are not so enlightened as Mrs. Warren in their views upon the traffic off which they live, they are in their own crude way equally sincere in beholding in it a business quite as legitimate as any other. With the same inconsistency with which Hindel implores Heaven for aid in achieving her nefarious aims, after which she promises to be a model wife and mother (See Act Two), Mrs. Warren at the end of Shaw's play swears by Heaven that henceforth she will lead a life of evil fornication.
ellauri308.html on line 667: Zhydobandera, Zhidobandera, or Zhydobanderovets – "Yid-Banderite" or "Judeo-Banderite" a conflation of Zhyd (i.e., a Kike) and a Bandera follower. This is an ironic self-appellation coined by Ukrainian Jewish activists during the Euromaidan protests to highlight the inconsistency of Russian propaganda which demonized Ukrainian pro-Europe and pro-democracy activism as fascist to the West and as Jewish to Ukrainians, with reference to "Judeo-Bolshevism".
ellauri389.html on line 69: Elia sees no inconsistency in the fact that porcelain can be both an exclusive luxury item found at "great houses" and an ordinary household accessory such as his teacup, affirming the empire's newly inclusive economy in which porcelain is inexpensive, and a clerk can live like a king; indeed, Elia foregrounds imperialism's integrative effects on porcelain by intimating that his teacup has become precisely the "cheap luxury" for which Bridget always longs. Indeed, the essay itself is replicated by the visual image on Elia's teacup: the cup's picture of "a young and courtly Mandarin, handing tea to a lady from two miles off' is a miniature, orientalized reflection of Elia's and Bridget's (qua Mary) incestuous tea-time smooching.
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 667: Critics of the RC scales assert they have deviated too far from the original clinical scales, the implication being that previous research done on the clinical scales will not be relevant to the interpretation of the RC scales. However, researchers on the RC scales assert that the RC scales predict pathology in their designated areas better than their concordant original clinical scales while using significantly fewer items and maintaining equal to higher internal consistency, reliability and validity; further, unlike the original clinical scales, the RC scales are not saturated with the primary factor (demoralization, now captured in RCdem) which frequently produced diffuse elevations and made interpretation of results difficult; finally, the RC scales have lower interscale correlations and, in contrast to the original clinical scales, contain no interscale item overlap.
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 678: H.L.A Hart's review of the third edition in The New York Review of Books was mixed. While writing that "The utility of selling this utilitarian's book to students of its subject can hardly be exaggerated", Hart also criticized Practical Ethics for philosophical inconsistency in its chapter on abortion. He argues that Singer insufficiently explains how self interest and classical utilitarianism each view abortion, and does not bring out their differences. Self interest of males is strongly against abortion. Besides, carrots are fit food for bunnies only.
25