Consider the statement, A, "I know that is a dog because it's cute." In the context of evaluating whether A is contained in a particular list of statements, or not, A is not an argument – it's just a literal string devoid of meaning. I check the list and conclude, B, "A is on the list". The negation of that is "A is not on the list". Both B and ~B can't be true regardless of what statements are on the list.
...If you want to evaluate "A is on the list" by whether the statement is itself on the list, not by whether A is on the list, then you're defining a goal
Things which depend on the context in "[Statement] is standard-true" are the final intended meaning of the statement and reality against which the standard-truthiness of the statement is evaluated against. The reality may be the actual reality or a hypothetical one. Standard-true and "true/correct answer to a question" overlap in some cases but they are different concepts. A statement can be standard-true and be a false answer to a question. A statement can be standard-false and be a true answer to a question. Standard-true is concerned with one and one qu...
Let's use "standard-true" to refer to what people usually mean by "true" when they say "[Statement] is true". I don't have a robust description of what I think that meaning is but in many cases "[Statement] corresponds with reality" is a good description.
I think what you mean by "true" overlaps with standard-true but overall it is different. The standard-true meaning doesn't have "for a purpose" clause. With that said, the standard-true can be framed as "true for a purpose of corresponding with reality" (read "corresponding with reality" as a stand-in for ...
Of all ideas I'd like to consider statements in particular. I guess according with your usage of "true/false" a statement can be true/false only for a purpose. Just saying a statement is true/false without assuming any purpose has no valid meaning. A statement is true/false for a purpose if and only if it succeeds/fails at that purpose. The {statement, purpose} pairing for the "true/false" evaluation can be any, at least in principle.
When you say you "accept/believe/think that" followed by a statement, like for example, "I think that it was raining yesterd...
Feature request: display time when a user's comment is made publicly visible by moderators.
Truth is success at a purpose, not a different type of evaluation that can reach a different answer.
...
"2+2=4" is true for the purpose of obeying the laws of arithmetic but false as the answer to "What color is the sky?"
Is "2+2=5" true for the purpose of NOT obeying the laws of arithmetic?
Is a fiction-idea true for the purpose of providing entertainment if it succeeds at this purpose?
My current guesses about what you mean by "decisive argument" and "indecisive argument": Every "indecisive argument" is not formally logically valid. Every "decisive argument" is formally logically valid. If something of this is incorrect, then please, let me know.
CF evaluates ideas by whether they succeed or fail at a purpose (achieve a goal, solve a problem, answer a question). Ideas are for something and can't be evaluated in isolation.
Ideas which are either false or true can be evaluated on a scale of plausibility. Do you think this may be useful at ti...
Does the fact that CF eliminates credences completely mean that whoever is applying CF in practice never considers credence for anything, never reports credence for anything, never asks others for credence for anything? Does CF recommend that nobody ever considers credence?
For me there is a lot of uncertainty about the meaning of reasoning in terms of models, reasoning in terms of propositions, meaning of being a (not) Bayesian in practice.
For example:
Is reasoning in terms of propositions necessarily takes away from reasoning in terms of models?
Can it be be part of reasoning in terms of models?
Are there other modes of reasoning?
This is an obstacle for figuring out what one can implement in practice differently if they become convinced with every argument you make in this post.
The following might help with this.
Could you prov...
Your reply seems to suggest that here
you mean by "true" something like what I labeled as "standard-true". Something which is not a subject to your claim "Truth is success at a purpose". Something such that 2+2=4 is true not for some purpose which can be selected at a whim, but instead it is just true. Something such that 2+2=5 is false and there is no slot where you can place just the right purpose and have 2+2=5 be true for that purpose. Is this what you mean by the word "true" (and implied "false") in this quote?