FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W264098207> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W264098207 startingPage "372" @default.
• W264098207 abstract "Is it possible for the truth of something to be relative? This is a question that has plagued philosophers and logicians for generations. Mainstream Aristotelians usually give a kneejerk negative answer. After all, under the standard model of logic, something cannot be both true and not true. Yet, are persistent problems that rear their heads at such absolutist ways of thinking. One of these major problems, that has helped contribute powerfully to the development of relativistic thinking, is the problem of Basically stated, A case of faultless disagreement is a case of disagreement in which neither party is wrong or making a (Huvenes, 2012, 2). As Max Kolbel first formally formulated this argument, it has come under much scrutiny. This essay addresses the issue of faultless disagreement and the attendant alethic relativism it seems to confirm. It addresses both the issue of whether is a disagreement, and if is any fault involved in the dispute. Ultimately, this essay demonstrates that the problems. that attain to the concept of faultless disagreement are cleared up very effectively by a General Semantics approach to the issue. faultless disagreement occurs, most simply, when are two individuals, and B, and a proposition (content of judgment) p such that: a) believes (judges) that p and B believes (judges) that not-p. b) Neither nor B has made a mistake (is at fault). (Kolbel, 2004, 54) The argument for faultless disagreement seeks to conclude that, there are propositions that it is correct for some people to accept and not for others (Kolbe], 2004, 53). Thus, the argument is concerned with the truth-value of declarative sentences concerning nonobjective matters, thus begging the question of how such sentences should be evaluated, given a truth-conditional theory of meaning. Under the traditional (i.e., mainstream) model of semantics, the truth of a statement depends on the meaning of the statement, the context in which it is stated, and the way things are in the world (Kolbel, 2008, 3). What faultless disagreement demonstrates is that is a *further factor on which the truth-content is dependent, namely the factor of individual perspective (Kolbel, 2004, 70). For example, in the case of two people, Adam and Beth, viewing a painting, when Adam says it is beautiful and Beth says it is not beautiful, both are making valid truth-claims, and thus neither is wrong. This gives us the ability to present a case of faultless disagreement (Lasersohn, 2005, 662). There is no fact of the matter with regard to the beauty of the painting, and both speakers are speaking truthful sentences. This all seems simple enough, until we consider the intensity of the value judgments of taste people often have. Adam may love the painting and cannot believe Beth's rejection of it, and seek to change her mind. It is often the case that people feel this way, not accepting the value judgment other people make on matters of taste. Yet, to the other person, their conflicting view is equally valid. Yet, looking at it from an outside perspective, it is not possible to conclude that is a greater or lesser truth-claim by either party. Indeed, some of the worst arguments had between ordinary people involve value judgments regarding various forms of food, art, beauty, and so on. The proponent of faultless disagreement thus concludes that both speakers in a given argument are speaking the truth, and thus we cannot attribute fault to either party. Despite its simple and on-the-face-of-it compelling explanation, is very real trouble in Paradise for faultless disagreement. The absolutist, or realist, stance claims that is one real truth of any given statement, and is thus faulty judgment on the part of someone in the case of disagreement. To dispute between Adam and Beth on the beauty of a given painting, both cannot be right in this case, rather, If . …" @default.
• W264098207 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W264098207 creator A5025896133 @default.
• W264098207 date "2013-10-01" @default.
• W264098207 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W264098207 title "Alethic Relativism and Faultless Disagreement: Weighing in on the Puzzle from a General Semantics Perspective" @default.
• W264098207 cites W2070800487 @default.
• W264098207 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W264098207 type Work @default.
• W264098207 sameAs 264098207 @default.
• W264098207 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W264098207 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W264098207 hasAuthorship W264098207A5025896133 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C185305159 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C2777152325 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C2777179996 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C2778023277 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W264098207 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C111472728 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C12713177 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C138885662 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C17744445 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C185305159 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C185592680 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C199539241 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C2524010 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C2776050585 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C2777152325 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C2777179996 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C2778023277 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C33923547 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C55493867 @default.
• W264098207 hasConceptScore W264098207C98184364 @default.
• W264098207 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W264098207 hasLocation W2640982071 @default.
• W264098207 hasOpenAccess W264098207 @default.
• W264098207 hasPrimaryLocation W2640982071 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W1830518730 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W1857094229 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W1989642617 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2018748786 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2073456279 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W212173429 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2131221014 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2146644386 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2313208938 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2313223630 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2324501331 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2324748396 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2326326822 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2596274844 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W2615837902 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W297483529 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W3009596450 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W32636207 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W43513700 @default.
• W264098207 hasRelatedWork W1566068496 @default.
• W264098207 hasVolume "70" @default.
• W264098207 isParatext "false" @default.
• W264098207 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W264098207 magId "264098207" @default.
• W264098207 workType "article" @default.