Is truth binary? Can there be degrees of truth? Must we say a statement is either true or false? In everyday conversations we do say things like “The story is only 30% true.”

On the case of Bill Cosby's release from prison, I heard the news commentator on television (CNN) saying, quote, "we don't have justice system in this country, we have legal system". This raises the following question: Isn't the legal system built to implement justice (at least in the minds of those who participated in forming the legal system) or is there another logic, or better to say, alongside the acclaimed logic of justice, other social considerations to have been prevalent? Ali , Tehran, Iran

A question on luck which an acceptable definition would be ....... success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions. If I strike a golf ball from a tee and it hits a rock and goes straight in for a hole in one is that “luck”?   How is it deemed so if my intention is to strike the ball in an attempt to get it in the hole? If It happened to hit a rock and go in it would be deemed “lucky” , what if I aimed for the rock hoping for that result is it luck? Using this example would all golf shots be luck bad /good dependent  on the bounce of the ball?  What exactly is luck philosophically speaking? Surely luck exists only if a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics is true?

I recently watched a tv show that produced a line of questioning in my head on the virtue of reality. How do we define reality? What's the difference between reality and a world that is the perfect replication of reality? What would be the difference between the two worlds? Is it truly possible to know when we are living in reality? I guess I'm mostly asking if there is work form past philosophers that I could read on the subject?

If we assume that relativism isn't true, how can we explain the fact that people behave differently?

How do we justify our knowledge of the external world? Knowledge of the external world seems to be fallible in any case if we put the threshold of success at the highest level, namely 100% certainty. But this still raises a question: if we want to avoid complete skepticism, how can we be certain that our knowledge is at least likely to be true? In order to create a probability about the validity of our knowledge of the external world we need to start from perception. The problem is that we can be certain of the existence of perception but not the source of it (the matrix/the real world), and that is essential for the knowledge of the external world. In order to calculate our probability we then need the number of possible events E and the one favourable event F we're looking for: E = 2 possible events are external source or non-external source (matrix, hallucination, dream etc.) F = 1 favourable event i.e. external source P(F) = F/E = 1/2 = 50% It seems to me that both possibilities are equally likely....

First: I think every question has a logical answer. is it correct? Second: If the answer to my first question is yes, then what is the logical answer to the question why a cow has four legs?

Hello. I read on the internet that Buddhism teaches solipsism. I want to ask: Do the teachings and doctrines of all the official schools of Buddhism in China, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam allow Buddhists, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas to believe that other people have individual minds, consciousnesses, feelings, emotions, and thoughts? Thank you

Hello! I'd like to ask about syllogisms. I have a particular problem when understanding this certain syllogism: Some girls are single. Some girls are sad. Therefore, some girls are single and sad. While I think it is valid, I cannot fully make an accurate explanation as to why it is. Hoping somebody could help me. Thanks!

I have recently compared two philosophy texts which are very very close in material they present: A Concise Introduction to logic 12th edition by Patrick Hurley and Introduction to Logic by Irving Copi & Carl Cohen 12th edition. I have a question about the logical Equivalence Rule Material Implication which states where ever P imples Q appears one can substitute Not P or Q and vice versa. I noticed if Not P or Q is Implicated the NOT is always on the left hand side. There is no instance of Q or Not P and the rule Material Implication being applied. My question is if I am given "Q or Not P" can I apply Material Implication as written or must I commutate "Q or Not P" to get "Not P or Q" and then use the Material Implication rule? It seems all is done to avoid using material implication with a negative disjunct on the right hand side. What is the deal with that? In other words, Would I get false conclusions if I deduce Q or Not P as Not Q or Not P? I am correct in guessing this may be the case? I...