Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:20:17 GMT

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:16:15 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>[...]
>>>Actually, your example is a synthetic truth - it's an observation about
>>>the world, which is true, false, or inapplicable, as the case may be.
>>
>>
>> If it's synthetic, it's not in that sense, since once I have the experience
>> the statement IS true, by the definition of visible. Once I've had the
>> experience, the premise is wholly contained in the experience itself, and is
>> derived directly from it. That seems to fit the definition of analytic to
>> me; once I've SEEN something, it follows directly that the object I saw was
>> visible and needs no other supporting evidence.
>
>"Analytic" refers to sentences whose truth values can be determined from
>their logical structure, regardless of content. "Synthetic" refers to
>senetgnecs whos truth value depends on their content.

Is the truth of finite tautological regression to self contradictory
alternatives established analytically or synthetically? Not quite
sure what "senetgnecs" means.

Regards - Lester