[FOM] FOM Potential

[Torkel Franzen]

Neil says:

 >Discussion on a conference floor, in my own quite extensive
 >experience, has hardly ever attained the level of informedness,
 >incisiveness and sense of joint quest for the truth that is routinely
 >attained by contributions to this list.

  In that spirit, I would like to know how you now view the minor
technical point raised in

http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2003-April/006374.html

and, more essentially, how you view the question just what the
"semantical argument" is to establish:

   Certainly there is no (essential) need for talk of truth when proving
   "if F is consistent then G". Talk of truth is here just a matter of
   convenience. But in your paper you are concerned with a "semantical
   argument...designed to help one understand why asserting G would be
   the right thing to do". If a proof of "if F is consistent then G"
   is to prompt us to assert G, we must take the view that asserting "F
   is consistent" is the right thing to do. It is here that any "need"
   for talk of truth must be located. Hence my complaint about your
   paper, that we already knew that G can be deduced from "F is
   consistent" without invoking truth, and that the real issue concerns
   how "F is consistent" (or, equivalently, your reflection principle) is
   to be justified.

---

Torkel Franzen