Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

True statements

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

True statements
NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287
Posted 04/14/09 - 08:46 PM:
quote post
#21
J. Random Hacker wrote:


Sorry, I didn't mean to make things overcomplicated. It's false that men never hold their breaths so "Men breath and never hold their breaths for periods of time" is false because (T ∧ F) = F.


So we didn't take it as truth in the first place. This makes me ask: can a truth be broken?
Banno
Old goat
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301
Posted 04/14/09 - 08:51 PM:
quote post
#22
NothingtoSay wrote:

The problem here is that we don't know what truth is.

Why would you think this? We, successful users of English, manage to identify which statements are true and which false, and overwhelmingly we agree on what is the case and what is not. Disagreement seems to be peripheral, rather than central. If we don't know what truth is, whence such success in it's use?

Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement.
Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...
Ned: Such is life
NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287
Posted 04/14/09 - 08:58 PM:
quote post
#23
Banno wrote:

Why would you think this? We, successful users of English, manage to identify which statements are true and which false, and overwhelmingly we agree on what is the case and what is not. Disagreement seems to be peripheral, rather than central. If we don't know what truth is, whence such success in it's use?



So those people know what makes a statement true?

And you have no opinion on the rest of my post?
J. Random Hacker
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479
Posted 04/14/09 - 09:04 PM:
quote post
#24
NothingtoSay wrote:
So we didn't take it as truth in the first place. This makes me ask: can a truth be broken?


Necessary truths don't change. If the past is fixed then contingent truths, once true, don't either.
NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287
Posted 04/14/09 - 09:11 PM:
quote post
#25
J. Random Hacker wrote:


Necessary truths don't change. If the past is fixed then contingent truths, once true, don't either.


Mind explaining further?
Banno
Old goat
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301
Posted 04/14/09 - 09:33 PM:
quote post
#26
NothingtoSay wrote:


So those people know what makes a statement true?

And you have no opinion on the rest of my post?

Say something interesting, and I will respond.

Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement.
Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...
Ned: Such is life
J. Random Hacker
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479
Posted 04/14/09 - 09:35 PM:
quote post
#27
NothingtoSay wrote:
Mind explaining further?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency wrote:
In philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are not necessarily true or necessarily false. Here are four classes of propositions, some of which overlap:

  • necessarily true propositions, which must be true, no matter what the circumstances are or could be (examples: 2 + 2 = 4; All bachelors are unmarried).

  • necessarily false propositions, which must be false, no matter what the circumstances are or could be (examples: 2 + 2 = 5; Anne is both taller than and shorter than Brad).

  • contingent propositions, which are not necessarily true and not necessarily false (examples: There are only three planets; There are more than three planets).

  • possible propositions, which are true or could have been true given certain circumstances (examples: x + y = 4; There are only three planets; There are more than three planets). All necessarily true propositions, and all contingent propositions, are also possible propositions.


    • There is no fact that makes all bachelors unmarried. There is no point in time to which necessary truths refer and there's no point in time at which they become true. They are timeless and true by definition.

    Contingent propositions, on the other hand, always refer to some point in time and become true at that point in time. Even when we don't mention a time, such as "it is raining" the time marker is implied as the current time. The statement that "there are more than three planets" really means that "there are more than three planets now". Since "now" is a relative time marker, to avoid confusion, let's just use today's date instead. The statement "there are more than three planets on April 15th" became true when, on April 15th, there was in fact more than three planets in existence. Before that time, the planets could have exploded, been sucked into a black hole, whatever. It was contingent before April 15th and there was no defined truth value for the statement "there are more than three planets on April 15th". It became true (or false) at a certain point in time. Assuming that the past is fixed, it can't change tomorrow and suddenly be false that "there are more than three planets on April 15th".
    Banno
    Old goat
    Avatar

    Usergroup: Sponsors
    Joined: Aug 15, 2004
    Location: Oz

    Total Topics: 111
    Total Posts: 6301
    Posted 04/14/09 - 09:59 PM:
    		quote post
    #28
    J. Random Hacker wrote:




    There is no fact that makes all bachelors unmarried. There is no point in time to which necessary truths refer and there's no point in time at which they become true. They are timeless and true by definition.

    This looks a bit too strong...

    Isn't it rather the case that the tautology is true by a convention rather than "timeless and true by definition"?

    This is I think Quine's point in Two Dogmas, that analytic distinctions cannot ultimately be differentiated from synthetic distinctions, except as a question of common use.

    Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement.
    Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...
    Ned: Such is life
    J. Random Hacker
    banned
    Avatar

    Usergroup: Sponsors
    Joined: Apr 11, 2009

    Total Topics: 12
    Total Posts: 479
    Posted 04/14/09 - 10:04 PM:
    		quote post
    #29
    Banno wrote:
    Isn't it rather the case that the tautology is true by a convention rather than "timeless and true by definition"?


    A definition is a convention.
    Banno
    Old goat
    Avatar

    Usergroup: Sponsors
    Joined: Aug 15, 2004
    Location: Oz

    Total Topics: 111
    Total Posts: 6301
    Posted 04/14/09 - 10:14 PM:
    		quote post
    #30
    J. Random Hacker wrote:


    A definition is a convention.

    then something that is true by definition is not a timeless truth, since once the convention folds, the truth ceases.

    Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement.
    Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...
    Ned: Such is life
    Members currently reading this thread: Cheshire
    Download thread as

    Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last



    Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

    Powered by WSN Forum

    The time is now 11/22/09 - 09:32 AM.