MSC

Well even so, let us know if anyone who knows everything joins. I imagine myself and the rest of humanity will have a lot of questions for them! Hello all! I'm MSC. You'll mostly see me in the philosophy and ethics section. I'll also be visiting psychology, sociology, linguistics and physics. Hope to have many collaborative and fruitful conversations here.

- SEP What are the arguments against Epistemic Contextualism? What are the arguments for Epistemic Contextualism? If you wish to learn more before answering, please visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. For more information; Dretske, Cohen, Feldman and Wittgenstein are all extremely important figures to this new idea. Being familiar with Philosophical investigations by L. Wittgenstein is probably essential to really understanding the context that gave birth to this type of thinking about epistemology. If you aren't much of a reader, Director Derek Jarmons, Jubilee and Wittgenstein will also help reach a more, Artistically impressionistic feeling of what this form of epistemic thought entails. Personal note: Really happy to be in this forum. I have seen a lot of really interesting and critical discussions taking place, in so many fields, that I am stuck for choice of where to begin to engage with you all.

Let me put it another way; riddles are also a type of contest. If riddles are a type of contest, who are you competing against right now? Me? Or are competitions and contests not the same thing? What if I told you that in this riddle, two persons are playing. One lost, one won. So, who won? This riddle has in no way been answered yet.

A fair answer. It's probably maybe wrong but it's a fair answer. So your answer; is that nobody could have won or lost based on your claim that all contests need two contestants? Is that a fair break down of your answer? Are black and white not the contestants?

You sit down at the chess table, you lay your pieces on the board, you start by setting up the black pieces. Then, you switch seats and set up the white. For some reason, you've always felt it was unfair that white always gets to move first. How can that be a rule? Why is it a rule? Nevermind. The games about to start. White moves first. It's a French open. Nothing too serious. It's always better to play black defensively anyway. You watch and react to the flow of the game until finally, on the 27th move, checkmate. You look over at your opponent, no one there. You look down at the board, white won. Black king wasn't able to get out of the castle before it was too late. Who won the game? Who was black and who was white? Who lost? Hint: This is epistemically unsolvable. I created this problem awhile ago so I figured it would be good to share on here by way of Introducing myself. I am MSC. I am a Philosopher. I am also a Polymath. I'll be posting some contemporary work (Not mine) in the philosophy section very soon. I've already searched for the terms I will be discussing and have found that they have not been discussed here before. I really can't wait to start some of these discussions with you all and am very much looking forward to some Critical Conversations with anyone whom wishes to take part. No, I will not tell you what MSC stands for. That too will be a puzzle to potentially be solved by someone on this forum after the clues have been laid out. This puzzle is the first of those clues. Enjoy everyone! Additional: I made this puzzle, but I do not know what the true answer to it is. I have my answer, but people won't like it. Too bad. That is the closest we can get for now.