Fact of the day

[QUOTE=mattty;1234602]There is no consistent theory of truth that meets the principle of bivalence (that every sentence must be either true or false).

Determinately true or false, mind. But +1.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and I meant proposition, not sentence, but you get the picture.

I'm fine with 'sentence', actually.

In a similar theme, if you believe Popper, Wittgenstein tried to attack him with a poker.

Of course, we cannot know whether this is true or false.

I suspect false.

"Du-du-du, duuu-duuu, du-du-du" is Morse code for "SMS".

James Cameron uses a nailgun to nail crew members' mobile phones to a wall if they ring during filming.

Cameron's film Terminator 2: Judgement Day was once described as "a perfect masterpiece" by Kingsley Amis.

Kingsley Amis wrote a James Bond novel under the pseudonym Robert Markham.

James Bond is half Swiss.

Switzerland's bridges and tunnels are mined with explosives, so that the country can quickly be isolated in the event of invasion.

Switzerland accidently invaded Liechtenstein three years ago.

Martin Amis is a douche bag.

Fact.

Martin Amis is a douche bag.

Fact.

Yes.

Bees (and other Hymenoptera, such as wasps and ants) are haplodiploid.

This means that the sex of a larvae is determined by whether or not the egg it hatches from is fertilised. If an egg remains unfertilised, the offspring from it will be male; if it is fertilised, the offspring will be female. Thus male bees have no father and no sons

I'm fine with 'sentence', actually.

Really, I expected more of you. "Who are you?" is a sentence, but has no truth value.

Honey never spoils. Ever. Which is why honey in Egyptian tombs is still edible

Bees (and other Hymenoptera, such as wasps and ants) are haplodiploid.

This means that the sex of a larvae is determined by whether or not the egg it hatches from is fertilised. If an egg remains unfertilised, the offspring from it will be male; if it is fertilised, the offspring will be female. Thus male bees have no father and no sons

All wasps are bastards!

I knew it!

Bees (and other Hymenoptera, such as wasps and ants) are haplodiploid.

This means that the sex of a larvae is determined by whether or not the egg it hatches from is fertilised. If an egg remains unfertilised, the offspring from it will be male; if it is fertilised, the offspring will be female. Thus male bees have no father and no sons

This is awesome! Self-regulating system to keep the sexes balanced.

In a similar theme, if you believe Popper, Wittgenstein tried to attack him with a poker.

Of course, we cannot know whether this is true or false.

I suspect false.

I feel rather sorry for Karl Popper. His output was far more useful than Wittgenstein's (if such a statement can be made at all), but Wittgenstein is canonised as some mystical troubled genius who delivered these impenetrable insights about the composition of reality. IMO Popper had a much higher demonstrable effect/output, but is scarcely remembered.

Horatio should be doing some work and not trolling around on this thread... Irrefutable FACT!

Honey never spoils. Ever. Which is why honey in Egyptian tombs is still edible

Sherlock Holmes kept bees after he retired.

And if you're thinking wait, but isn't Sherlock Holmes a fictional character, you should know that he has an extraordinary honorary fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry in real life.

Lichtenstein likes pie more than crumble.

I feel rather sorry for Karl Popper. His output was far more useful than Wittgenstein's (if such a statement can be made at all), but Wittgenstein is canonised as some mystical troubled genius who delivered these impenetrable insights about the composition of reality. IMO Popper had a much higher demonstrable effect/output, but is scarcely remembered.

I have time for Wittgenstien's biography (as you mentioned, most people do) and his style. Beyond that, he is beyond me.

Popper, on the other hand, can fuck right off. (Worst reading of Plato EVER).

I'll take Oakeshott as my Britain-based 20th century Conservative historian of ideas/philosopher, any day of the week (I say Britain-based because I have a soft spot for Strauss).

Really, I expected more of you. "Who are you?" is a sentence, but has no truth value.

Fine by me. Why should it? It's a question. I don't believe that any sentence has a 'truth value', anyway.

Popper, on the other hand, can fuck right off. (Worst reading of Plato EVER).

I'm still not convinced that Popper actually did read Plato. ;P

I think Plato must have attacked Popper with a poker once, and after that, Popper had it in for him.

Apart from still being too positivist, The Logic of Scientific Discovery isn't a bad book, though.

Sherlock Holmes kept bees after he retired.

And if you're thinking wait, but isn't Sherlock Holmes a fictional character, you should know that he has an extraordinary honorary fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry in real life.

But not the one who kept bees? the fictional one kept bees

I feel rather sorry for Karl Popper. His output was far more useful than Wittgenstein's (if such a statement can be made at all), but Wittgenstein is canonised as some mystical troubled genius who delivered these impenetrable insights about the composition of reality. IMO Popper had a much higher demonstrable effect/output, but is scarcely remembered.

Hells yeah! I'm all about the Popper me! Serious. He's the reason I ended up doing Philosophy of Physics. *Boyband love.

Greasy, I've heard that honey fact before but I have some runny honey that's gone a funny colour and started to dry up and crystalise. It's barely spreadable now and I reckon left to it's own devices it's going to dry out into honey-dust. Delicious honey dust.

Popper, on the other hand, can fuck right off.

Right that's it!

*throws down gauntlet

Pokers at dawn. I'll be waiting outside the cave.

EDIT: You're spot on regarding Martin Amis though.

the length of a piece off string, is twice the length from the end to the middle.

I have time for Wittgenstien's biography (as you mentioned, most people do) and his style. Beyond that, he is beyond me.

Popper, on the other hand, can fuck right off. (Worst reading of Plato EVER).

I'll take Oakeshott as my Britain-based 20th century Conservative historian of ideas/philosopher, any day of the week (I say Britain-based because I have a soft spot for Strauss).

Not familiar with Popper's Plato (I have no real interest in ancient philosophy, beyond it's reformulation in early 20th C philosophical logic), but his work on the philosophy of science was truly groundbreaking.

My Britain-based 20th C blah blah blah would be Russell - a true giant.

Fine by me. Why should it? It's a question. I don't believe that any sentence has a 'truth value', anyway.

I meant "truth value" in the sense that the principle of bivalence could apply. You appear to be cheekily implying something about my ontology that was utterly unintended.

I have time for Wittgenstien's biography (as you mentioned, most people do) and his style.

Can't say I blame you, he was a very interesting man.

Just look at that distinguished mug! phwoar! etc.