Thanks. True, but no one would understand us. Anyone remember programable calculators that used reversible polish notation? I recall using one that wa...
One approach that might be helpful here is to point out that deflation need not commit to correspondence being wrong. So such sentences as "that the k...
Yes, more or less, with a few notes. What designation does is to take each of the things named in the object language and give them another name in th...
@"Moliere", @"Luke" I certainly don't advocate any form of idealism, and don't wish to be misunderstood as advocating that there are only propositions...
I don't know why you are making these claims. They don't seem related to anything. You said I think a distinction needs to be made between these two c...
Yes, and read a few chapters on pred logic and free logic. :brow: The white sauce nearly caught in the pan - I shouldn't read while cooking. I tried t...
Just that. The argument is ill-formed. What can we do? Well, we might take "t" as a first-order predicate over a domain of propositions; I gather you ...
Not so much bicycle wheels. Statements, beliefs, sentences, utterances, yes. And yes, there is not much more to its analysis than is given in a T-sent...
Did I? Seems a step too far. I think I maintained that truth ranges over propositions, in order to contrast it with belief, which seems to involve bot...
Only that those who might suppose there to be no difference between truth and belief do not seem to have the benefits of a target for their arrows. I ...
Hmm. In order to miss the target, there must be a target to miss. In order to lie, or to be mistaken, there must be a truth. Nor do I, apart from that...
If Fred's belief is false, and Fred's belief is that the tree is an English Oak, then "The tree is an English Oak" is false. To be false is to be not ...
Again, this is ill-formed, mixing predicate and propositional terms with abandon. But if we try to get to the sprite of the argument, you might validl...
Good idea. A bit of depth. We can perhaps see the difference most clearly if we look to the use of each rather than meaning. Let's look at an example ...
Nor am I. To be sure, to believe that p is to believe that p is true. They are not unrelated, but they are different, and have differing uses in both ...
Yeah, Who was it said that? It might be an interesting discussion. But can you fill it out? Presumably with the proposition in the place of the arrow,...
, The point, so far as there was one, to this discussion is to find a grammar for our notion of truth that holds together in a more or less consistent...
A series of politicians operating in bad faith have undermined trust in democratic practices. Hence threads such as this. Politics ought be about the ...
Nice. Lets' take a look at this. We can rewrite this as: 1. p&p. (A) ______ 2. p (&I) or on a single line as p&p ? p Where again ? is "therefore", we ...
What? R: it's raining. ~R: It's not raining XOR: exclusive OR R XOR ~R: It's either raining, or not, but not both T: true A bunch of T's down a column...
Interesting. So we again need a trivalent logic, with (p v ~p) being neither true nor false, but this time in order to defend the correspondence theor...
Don't fall to the idealist error of thinking truth is dependent on you. Down that path lies solipsism. It could still rain without you noticing. Perha...
So you would have "it's raining or it's not raining" parsed as (r ?~r). That still get you a tautology, +---+----+----------+ | R | ~R | R XOR ~R | +-...
Comments