15 ideas
11257 | The Pythagoreans were the first to offer definitions [Politis, by Politis] |
11235 | 'True of' is applicable to things, while 'true' is applicable to words [Politis] |
11277 | Maybe 'What is being? is confusing because we can't ask what non-being is like [Politis] |
11248 | Necessary truths can be two-way relational, where essential truths are one-way or intrinsic [Politis] |
19682 | Internalists are much more interested in evidence than externalists are [McGrew] |
19684 | Does spotting a new possibility count as evidence? [McGrew] |
19687 | Absence of evidence proves nothing, and weird claims need special evidence [McGrew] |
19688 | Every event is highly unlikely (in detail), but may be perfectly plausible [McGrew] |
19686 | Criminal law needs two separate witnesses, but historians will accept one witness [McGrew] |
19680 | Maybe all evidence consists of beliefs, rather than of facts [McGrew] |
19681 | If all evidence is propositional, what is the evidence for the proposition? Do we face a regress? [McGrew] |
19689 | Several unreliable witnesses can give good support, if they all say the same thing [McGrew] |
19683 | Narrow evidentialism relies wholly on propositions; the wider form includes other items [McGrew] |
3061 | Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing [Anaxarchus, by Diog. Laertius] |
19685 | Falsificationism would be naive if even a slight discrepancy in evidence killed a theory [McGrew] |