Talk:Disquotational principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

This article must be missing something[edit]

It seems a straight-forward resolution of the paradox is, for example, to add the proposition "Sally does not believe Tully is Cicero." Surely there must be someone other than little old me to have proposed this resolution. Jim Bowery (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It is entirely unclear as to what sort of reasoning one is allowed to do. Common sense reasoning? Something else? Can I make deductions about beliefs? Why or why not? Likewise, for the last example, can I not deduce that Pierre simply does not know that these two Paderewski's are the same? (The Paderewski of the first over-heard discussion and the Paderewski of the second conversation). Is there some implicit assumption of Identity of indiscernibles clouding the issue, even though the two Paderewskis are clearly distinguishable, since the are parts of different conversations? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)