I don't know if you guys like IdeasInhat, he's kind of a douche but
https://ideasinhat.com/2019/01/01/the-difference-between-philosophy-and-science/

This meme is basically what I agree with, it's a labeling error to distinguish the two

Linguistics are all trivial

I'm not a metaphysical or ontological trivialist though

That's ... too far

Liars Paradox
Modal realism
Characterization principle
And Via PSR

The LEM is merely a principle so it's neither true nor false

Everytime you use a deduction, you're also using the principle or Law of excluded middle

You're using Bayesian logic

All lemons are yellow (with a truth value of .99, false value of 01) <----- both true and false

If the laws themselves are not true, then you ought not even believe the laws of logic

<:nope:643129502746017793>

When you correct Actual Communist Boy on meaning of words, you're inferring there's a ruleset of meanings of words
^ see rule following paradox

And when you're on equivalent ground for discourse, his definition is just as equal or true as yours

So you only want common ground on a definition

Pragmatic maxim or pragmatic theory of truth is that which is useful is true

But it allows a lot of things

I can't attack someone's belief in god, if they feel it useful

I accept all the theories of truth though...
Deflationary, correspondence, blah blah

There's no need to call people being able to interpret tones of voice and body language as ESP

@Lenore ❤️

❤️

Shut up Jon

ESP could be just be "senses outside of normative percepts" or some shit

But that naturalizes it

Like savants with savant syndrome able to do huge calculations normal people cannot

Would fall into a "sense outside of normativity"

Fucking modal semantics

it's time to stop

A concept is contingently true... why would someone say this

Mmmmmmm hyperintensional modal semantics

I'm getting all gooey

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#ModAxiConFra well

@Deleted User Type-F physicalism

Is still physicalism

@Deleted User Hempel's Dilemma

I accept a tautological definition of physical and natural

But reject dualism, because it's not parsimonious

You need not say there's some alternate substance called "the mental"

So... you just eliminate it and use that as a placeholder normatively... (because people have concepts of mental)

A la: people have mental illness (these are physical illness)