I'm a professor of philosophy. I've taught in several countries over many years. But I'm quitting soon to screw around and be a loser hanging out on Venice Beach in Los Angeles. My writings are found here: bryanfrances.weebly.com
I have taught logic classes at several universities. I am assuming that as I am using it in the post, "TS either is or is not human" is logically true. It doesn't matter if there are viable interpretations of it that aren't logically true. I thought it was clear that I was using the sentence to express a logical truth. All I need in the argument is the premise that it can express a logical truth. Almost everyone agrees with that premise, especially since "Taylor Swift" has a referent.
Thanks for your reply. I agree that we should avoid political topics here. That's why I didn't discuss any of his political, moral, or religious views. It was all about how we treat expertise, as you mentioned.
Thanks for the comment. I don't think there is any mistake in basic logic. I could formalize all of it in elementary symbolic logic. It would be first-order predicate logic, but still pretty basic.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm not sure that in order for an argument to be knockdown, there has to be a contrary belief. I might give a new, conclusive argument for a conclusion C that is so new that no one has ever disbelieved it (e.g., perhaps some claim about dark energy, a couple decades ago).
But in any case, if you were right, then the TS arguments wouldn't be knockdown, which is response 2 to the paradox.
'Taylor Swift is or is not human' is short for 'Either Taylor Swift is human or it's not the case that Taylor Swift is human', which is a logical truth on anyone's conception of logic.