Re: Liar's Paradox

On Apr 3, 11:06 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Marshall says...

Um, I'm guessing you're asking leading questions as
part of some sort of pedagogical technique.

Look, you made a post about the Liar Paradox. I don't
think that your post made very much sense. But if you're
not interested in defending it, I'll let it drop.

If you think something I wrote didn't make much sense,
I'd invite you to point out what you object to specifically.
You could perhaps also explain what reasoning you used,
and ideally even supply an alternative view that you
feel is superior. I could respond with counter-arguments,
or I might abandon my view if I feel yours is better. Or
I might point out some specific context-dependence, or
we might find that our different backgrounds have caused
us to employ different definitions for terms we are both
using.

Did the rest of what I wrote, which you snipped, sufficiently
answer your questions about my earlier meaning, or is
it still unclear?


Marshall
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Liars Paradox
    ... Marshall says... ... part of some sort of pedagogical technique. ... you made a post about the Liar Paradox. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Liars Paradox
    ... part of some sort of pedagogical technique. ... not interested in defending it, ... I hope I may be forgiven for making an intuitive leap, ...
    (sci.logic)