https://wiki.objectivismonline.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=DavidOdden 2026-07-02T01:24:17Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.39.2 https://wiki.objectivismonline.com/index.php?title=Talk:Certainty&diff=5755 2004-07-02T02:56:05Z

<p>DavidOdden: </p> <hr /> <div>Does the fact that water boils at 200 degrees on a mountaintop show that it is an error to say that water boils at 212 at sea level?<br /> <br /> I don't think that one's certain conclusions become wrong when new things are learned. I think one differentiates between two contexts that one previously had no reason to differentiate.<br /> <br /> == Sort of a beta comment ==<br /> <br /> I'm thinking this isn't the right way to add something in the talk section 'cuz I can't see the original comment but working from memory... I'd say that is a good example of the contextual nature of certainty. I was developing this point on HPO when the hypertroll problem persuaded me to just leave, so this never got worked out; but I think a lot of confusion follows from ignoring the fact that truth is a mental recognition of fact, and it isn't a particular sentence that you happen to utter as a way of telling others about that recognition. Anyhow, I think the problem is important enough to deserve a page.<br /> <br /> There isn't a clear convention about this in Wiki-land, but I think it's somewhat important if you make a major change in a page that you say something in the talk part that says roughly what you did and why. So for example, what motivates deleting a significant part of the Certainty entry? This is just a suggestion: the point is, I'm inclined to restore the deleted parts, so I'd like to hear what the reasoning is.</div>

DavidOdden https://wiki.objectivismonline.com/index.php?title=Talk:Certainty&diff=26 2004-06-28T21:11:12Z

<p>DavidOdden: Sort of a beta comment</p> <hr /> <div>Does the fact that water boils at 200 degrees on a mountaintop show that it is an error to say that water boils at 212 at sea level?<br /> <br /> I don't think that one's certain conclusions become wrong when new things are learned. I think one differentiates between two contexts that one previously had no reason to differentiate.<br /> <br /> == Sort of a beta comment ==<br /> <br /> I'm thinking this isn't the right way to add something in the talk section 'cuz I can't see the original comment but working from memory... I'd say that is a good example of the contextual nature of certainty. I was developing this point on HPO when the hypertroll problem persuaded me to just leave, so this never got worked out; but I think a lot of confusion follows from ignoring the fact that truth is a mental recognition of fact, and it isn't a particular sentence that you happen to utter as a way of telling others about that recognition. Anyhow, I think the problem is important enough to deserve a page.</div>

DavidOdden https://wiki.objectivismonline.com/index.php?title=Senses&diff=4921 2004-06-28T20:58:56Z

<p>DavidOdden: </p> <hr /> <div>Sensation refers to particular experiences that a living being has, due to specialised organs for hearing, seeing, feeling and smelling. Sensation is transient: when the physical stimulus is gone, the sensation is gone and cannot be held in memory (though it can be integrated into [[percept]]s, which can be). The senses refers to that faculty of transducing external physical properties to the brain: what the brain receives is sensations.</div>

DavidOdden https://wiki.objectivismonline.com/index.php?title=Existents&diff=4969 2004-06-28T13:04:27Z

<p>DavidOdden: </p> <hr /> <div>An existent is something that exists: it may be a thing (entity), an attribute or an action (ITOE p. 5).</div>

DavidOdden