Can formal semantics of linguistics be defined to eliminate semantic paradox?
There was only one person that responded that knew the first thing about formal-semantics. It really seems to me that people having no knowledge of the subject matter should recuse themselves on voting on these posts.
If you intend to participate here, you also have to understand the nature of social media answer sites. It's extremely democratic, and not like submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed academic journal, like Linguistics and philosophy. There is no qualifications test for asking, answering, up/downvoting questions and answers, commenting, and voting to close. It is thus in the nature of the beast that people can vote to close because a question is too complicated, too trivial, doesn't show enough research effort, or we don't think that the person has a clue what they are talking about. It is pointless for you to stipulate that people who aren't Kai Fintel or Gennaro Chierchia should not participate in a question.
You have to adjust your expectations. I have many questions that I'd like answers to, but I know the active and likely participants here, so most of those questions I would not ask here, instead I would email colleagues who are in that area, and hope that they would have the time to enlighten me.
It is true that I am not an expert in technical arcana of formal semantics, but I know enough about semantics and linguistic theory to know that your question was contextually unclear. Unclarity is contextual: I didn't understand it, you need to clarify. Your question imported a huge amount of invalid premises, and in my opinion suffers from a fatal misconception of the notion of truth. The remedy is not to angrily denounce participants who you feel don't understand you, instead you should seek an understanding of what causes the problem (why, exactly, was your question closed?). Instead, you are looking for a way to change the nature of SE.
IMO you have to accept SE for what it is.
Close-voting is a democratic process, every user with sufficient reputation is and will continue to be allowed to close-vote on all questions on this site, and most people use this power very responsibly. If 5 users, who have been active on this site for several years and demonstrated their subject competence through numerous positively received answers, independently decide that a question as currently worded needs improvement or is simply not a fit for this site, this is a strong indication that it actually is. Formal semantics is my field of focus, and I entirely agree on the close decision and the reasons given, even after your follow-up comments. Unless my moderator colleagues or other users have serious concerns, you will have to accept the decision made by the community. The majority and the experienced is who decide, and most of the time they know what they're doing.
If you are convinced that a close-action was unjustified, flag the post and the moderators will have a look at it. Provide objective reasons why you think the close was unjust, and explain how your question as currently worded does fit on the site. If the answer is still no, accept it. Most importantly, before you take any action, read and understand the reasons given for the post to be closed. Try to see why the others may indeed be right.
Attacking individual users disguised as a question is neither tactful nor useful. Instead of questioning high-rep members' competence and suggesting to cut on users' right to vote, why don't you instead try to take up on our suggestions? Your recently closed questions would be a fine fit for Philosophy SE, one of them I even migrated there for you, and users there would certainly be happy to answer them if you follow up on the comments to further clarify what it is you want to know about. Why would you prefer getting yourself and everyone else upset if the alternative is the chance of a well-received question with good answers?
We don't close questions to annoy you; noone has an interest in annoying you. We close questions because we want this site to be a good one, and putting questions on hold that don't meet certain requirements is a necessary process to maintain a productive exchange. We want you to ask questions. But we need you to ask them in a way that makes them actually answerable, and about a topic that this community agreed on to deal with. Trying to understand the close reasons and following up on the suggestions made by experienced and well-meaning users (remember that we are all here to help for free!) is how to get there.
While there is definitely an overlap between the kind of semantics questions that philosophers ask and the kind of semantics questions that linguists ask, there are also lots of questions that don't overlap. This site generally favours documentary linguistics, and while many formal semantics questions have been asked here, they are both a minority and may not be well received if they don't seem to have much relevance to documentary linguistics. Similarly, semiotics is not really on-topic here, despite being closely related to semantics.
Semantic paradoxes are probably not something most linguists have thought about as they are semantically empty and perhaps infelicitous. The Philosophy site is definitely the appropriate site for your question on formal semantics eliminating semantic paradoxes.
