0
   

Statement versus proposition

 
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 02:57 pm
@fast,
The primary difference between usage of these two words is

Statement: leaves no ambiguity, no question, or bargain is implied.

As he said "the witnesses have made their statements"

Proposition: results in direct or implied ambiguity.

I have a "proposition" for you.

or

I propose that Pluto be reinstated as a planet for these reasons ....
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 03:17 pm
@fast,
fast;172166 wrote:


No, a fact is a truth-bearer. A truth (aka a fact) (aka a truth-bearer) is what makes a proposition true. Notice I said a truth (as opposed to the truth). The truth (or just truth) is a true proposition.


No, I'm pretty sure propositions are widely considered to be truth-bearers. And, it's usually debated whether things like sentences, statements, tokens, and utterances are truth-bearers. I'm sure there are official position names (ask Emil) for them all.

Emil wrote:


Thank you. Never heard of gap-theories before now. Time to go research.
fast
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 03:50 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;172217 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure propositions are widely considered to be truth-bearers. And, it's usually debated whether things like sentences, statements, tokens, and utterances are truth-bearers. I'm sure there are official position names (ask Emil) for them all.

Eh, I think I just got truth-maker and truth-bearer mixed up.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:13 pm
@fast,
fast;172223 wrote:
Eh, I think I just got truth-maker and truth-bearer mixed up.


What is a truth-maker? Not sure I have heard of that term. Does it have a relationship with a truth-bearer?
fast
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;172231 wrote:
What is a truth-maker? Not sure I have heard of that term. Does it have a relationship with a truth-bearer?


A fact is sometimes called a truth-maker because it's what makes true propositions true.
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:35 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;172169 wrote:
A fact is a state of affairs. There's no true or false involved. There's no such thing as a true fact or a false fact. Facts are the way things are. They are what make some propositions true though.


As Night says, you (= Fast) have it reversed. Truth carriers are true/false because of facts (= state of affairs = how the world is).
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:36 pm
@fast,
fast;172240 wrote:
A fact is sometimes called a truth-maker because it's what makes true propositions true.


That seems strange to me. The wording, that is. What exactly makes it true?
0 Replies
 
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:39 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;172217 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure propositions are widely considered to be truth-bearers. And, it's usually debated whether things like sentences, statements, tokens, and utterances are truth-bearers. I'm sure there are official position names (ask Emil) for them all.



Thank you. Never heard of gap-theories before now. Time to go research.


Actually, you have, just under another name. Recall that we discussed sentences as truth carriers? However there are gaps in sentences = some sentences are neither true or false. Fast is a gap-theorist about sentences = Fast believes that some are true, some are false and some are neither. I don' think he believes that some are both but I don't know. I'm undecided as to whether sentences are true or false. I'm not a gap theorist about propositions = I believe that all propositions either at least true or false. I have no made up my mind about whether some are both.

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 12:42 AM ----------

Zetherin;172231 wrote:
What is a truth-maker? Not sure I have heard of that term. Does it have a relationship with a truth-bearer?


They are what makes things true. Most people think truth makers are facts (= correspondence theory of truth) but some do not. Some think that coherence is truth, some think what works is true (whatever that means).

Read up on theories of truth.

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Chapter 1.

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 12:43 AM ----------

Zetherin;172242 wrote:
That seems strange to me. The wording, that is. What exactly makes it true?


The proposition expressed by "The Earth exists." is true because (of the fact that) the Earth exists. Correspondence theory of truth.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:45 pm
@fast,
Emil wrote:
The proposition expressed by "The Earth exists." is true because (of the fact that) the Earth exists.


And because of that, we say that that fact makes that proposition true? Interesting. I suppose there was just something about the word that caught me off guard.
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:48 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;172250 wrote:
And because of that, we say that that fact makes that proposition true? Interesting. I suppose there was just something about the word that caught me off guard.


That's how it is usually said. Although it is not causation that is meant with "makes", it is another relation. Some people mistake this for causation and this is why they believe true propositions about the future cause them to act in the ways described.

Notes on Free Will and Determinism - Prof. Norman Swartz
0 Replies
 
fast
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 04:55 pm
@Emil,
[QUOTE=Emil;172241]As Night says, you (= Fast) have it reversed. Truth carriers are true/false because of facts (= state of affairs = how the world is).[/QUOTE]

A= the fact that the cat is on the mat.
B= the proposition that the cat is on the mat.

If A, then B is true. So, we are in agreement. If no A, then B is false.

But, even though I believe B is true, I still think it's legitimate to say that facts are true (it's redundant even!). I do not think cat is true, and I do not think mat is true, but I do think the fact that the cat is on the mat is true.

All facts are true, and no fact is false.

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Emil;172244]I don' think he believes that some are both but I don't know. [/QUOTE]I'll have to think about that some more. At first thought, I was going to go with a sentence can be both: "he went to the store" is sometimes true, and it's sometimes false. But then again, I need to keep in mind why I think sentences are true. I only think they're true when they express a true proposition (and false when they express a false proposition), and a sentence can't do both (be true and false) at the same time, for a proposition can't be both true and false at the same time. But, a sentence is neither a proposition nor an utterance, so you can use it (and it be true) while I use it (and it be false) at the same time, so maybe it can be both.

I don't know. I should think about this some more.

[QUOTE]They are what makes things true. Most people think truth makers are facts (= correspondence theory of truth) but some do not. Some think that coherence is truth, some think what works is true (whatever that means).[/QUOTE]You can put me down as a proponent of the correspondence theory of truth. I think coherence may be necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. It's possible to be incorrect about many things without ever making contradictory or contrary truth claims.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:45 pm
@fast,
fast;172174 wrote:
Yes, that too.

A truth; fact; state of affairs; truth-bearer;

If things are the way they are, then it's true that they are the way they are. All facts are true. To say of a fact that it's true is to be redundant.


No, you're confusing things. A fact is not true or false because a fact is not a proposition. A fact is what makes some propositions true. The proposition "the cat is on the mat" is true if, in fact, the cat is on the mat. That's not to say something redundant either because what follows after "in fact" is not meant to refer to a proposition but rather an actual state of affairs, namely, the physical arrangement of the cat on the mat.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:50 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;172279 wrote:
No, you're confusing things. A fact is not true or false because a fact is not a proposition. A fact is what makes some propositions true. The proposition "the cat is on the mat" is true if, in fact, the cat is on the mat. That's not to say something redundant either because what follows after "in fact" is not meant to refer to a proposition but rather an actual state of affairs, namely, the physical arrangement of the cat on the mat.


Well, this is how kennethamy put it:

kennethamy wrote:
All facts are true. "True fact" is a pleonasm. The question is, what is the fact. For instance, is it a fact (is it true) that the attack on Dresden was an act of terrorism? That is where the controversy arises.


So, to say that a fact is true, does seem to be excessive (it's not necessary to say that it is true, since all facts are true).
Night Ripper
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 08:00 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;172282 wrote:
So, to say that a fact is true, does seem to be excessive (it's not necessary to say that it is true, since all facts are true).


But that's not what a fact is. A fact is a state of affairs. It's what is reported by a true proposition. Facts are not linguistic at all. They are actual spatio-temporal slices of reality. The fact of JFK's shooting is not any string of words or utterances but rather the actual shooting of JFK. When I say "JFK was shot" it's the facts, the state of reality, that actually make such a proposition true.

Of course, the problem is that some people confuse a "true proposition" or a "truth" with a "fact" but they are quite different and facts are never true or false anymore than a "father" is true or false. Facts and fathers are both things. Something is either a fact or it's not. Something is either a father or it's not. But to say that it is a true fact or a true father is to miss the point completely. Facts and fathers aren't the kinds of things that are true or false.

Facts aren't true anymore than fathers are true. Facts are facts and fathers are fathers. A fact is something that is the case so to question if a fact is the case is the same as calling something a father and then asking if it's ever had any children. If it's a father, it's had children. If it's a fact, it is the case. There's no question involved.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 09:40 am
@fast,
Night Ripper wrote:
A fact is something that is the case so to question if a fact is the case is the same as calling something a father and then asking if it's ever had any children


No one is questioning if a fact is the case. It is assumed that a fact is the case (by definition), that is why "true fact" is a pleonasm. We sometimes use "truth" in place of "fact". A truth is that the chemical composition of water is H2O; a fact is that the chemical composition of water is H2O. We mean the same thing here. Remember that a true proposition is what is the case also, and that propositions are not sentences. Propositions can be expressed by sentences, that is, we can articulate a state of affairs with linguistics.

True Proposition = Truth = Fact
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 10:21 am
@Zetherin,
No, you're wrong. A fact (or several facts) is what makes a proposition true. They are not the same thing.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 10:30 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;172460 wrote:
No, you're wrong. A fact (or several facts) is what makes a proposition true. They are not the same thing.


See, I don't interpret propositions as linguistic. You seem to. Sentences are what are linguistic, and propositions can be expressed by sentences, but propositions are the truths and falsities about the world. And the truths about the world we call facts.

However, I understand your position. You believe propositions are what are linguistic (perhaps part of the meaning of sentences), and facts (what I call truths or true propositions), are what make those propositions true. Please don't blow up, I am not explicitly stating you are wrong. I am really still up in the air about it.

The more I think about, the more I believe you are correct. But again, I am not sure. I'll spend the next week thinking about the matter.

Thanks.
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:02 am
@fast,
fast;172255 wrote:


A= the fact that the cat is on the mat.
B= the proposition that the cat is on the mat.

If A, then B is true. So, we are in agreement. If no A, then B is false.

But, even though I believe B is true, I still think it's legitimate to say that facts are true (it's redundant even!). I do not think cat is true, and I do not think mat is true, but I do think the fact that the cat is on the mat is true.

All facts are true, and no fact is false.


Where did you get this idea from? That facts are true? It is not listed in Wiktionary.

fact - Wiktionary

Neither can I think of any example phrase. Please provide one if you can. I very much doubt you can.

Facts are not the kind of things that can meaningfully be said to be true or false (this is what some people mean when they say things like "facts cannot be true or false" cf. Zeth's usage of similar phrases). It is nonsense. One fact is that the earth exists. However would you say that "the earth exists is true" without speaking unclearly about the relevant truth carrier (proposition, sentence, belief, whatever)? That would be odd. Indeed, when we say things such as "It is true that the earth exists", we're talking about truth carriers. In such sentences the word "that" is often used and it has been noted by some philosophers that it is often associated with truth carriers. Some even use "that" to talk about truth carriers (especially propositions). For an example see Swartz (1979) that dedicates a section to explaining how to talk about propositions in a good way. I don't have the book here, so I cannot cite a page number for you or quote the relevant parts. I wish he would put it online as he did with his other books.

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:10 PM ----------

fast;172255 wrote:

I'll have to think about that some more. At first thought, I was going to go with a sentence can be both: "he went to the store" is sometimes true, and it's sometimes false. But then again, I need to keep in mind why I think sentences are true. I only think they're true when they express a true proposition (and false when they express a false proposition), and a sentence can't do both (be true and false) at the same time, for a proposition can't be both true and false at the same time. But, a sentence is neither a proposition nor an utterance, so you can use it (and it be true) while I use it (and it be false) at the same time, so maybe it can be both.

I don't know. I should think about this some more.


Actually I don't agree and neither does Ken that "he went to the store" is sometimes true and sometimes false. Ken would not even say that some propositions change truth values. Propositions, in his view and Swartz's, include information about the time of the state of affairs they are about. So if I utter the sentence above, it would express a different proposition each time because the time it was uttered changes.

The example is poor since it complicates things by being in the past tense. You should use a present tense example sentence such as "he is at the store" or better "he is at the store now". In the first improved example sentence the "now" in implied by context but not uttered.


For a discussion of the omnitemporalness of propositions, see Swartz (1979). I keep suggesting this book because you keep discussing things that are discussed in it! It is a wonder that you have not read it.

Do you also suffer from a reading block? I some a person that is pretty clever but he cannot read a book. He simply cannot find the motivation to do it. Strange but true. Still, he can find the motivation to waste large amounts of time on the internet on various forums. Strange indeed! If he used the same amount of time/energy on a book, he could have read it no problem.

Quote:
You can put me down as a proponent of the correspondence theory of truth. I think coherence may be necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. It's possible to be incorrect about many things without ever making contradictory or contrary truth claims.


I don't know how you can be a proponent of the C. theory but still think that coherence may be necessary. What do you mean?

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:11 PM ----------

Zetherin;172282 wrote:
Well, this is how kennethamy put it:



So, to say that a fact is true, does seem to be excessive (it's not necessary to say that it is true, since all facts are true).


Ken is wrong about this.

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:15 PM ----------

Night Ripper;172279 wrote:
No, you're confusing things. A fact is not true or false because a fact is not a proposition. A fact is what makes some propositions true. The proposition "the cat is on the mat" is true if, in fact, the cat is on the mat. That's not to say something redundant either because what follows after "in fact" is not meant to refer to a proposition but rather an actual state of affairs, namely, the physical arrangement of the cat on the mat.


Yes, that is correct. Though the tricky part seems to be that people need to drop their understanding of the normal usage in english of "fact" and use only the philosophical meaning in philosophical context. This is similar to other cases words such as "proposition" (as in "the true proposition" and as in "his proposition to Emily was declined"), "statement" (as when "statement" is used synonymously with "proposition" and as in "he gave his statement to the police"), "true" (as in a "true proposition/sentence" and as in "true love"), "sound" (as in "a sound argument" and in as "sound teeth").

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:17 PM ----------

Night Ripper;172440 wrote:
But that's not what a fact is. A fact is a state of affairs. It's what is reported by a true proposition. Facts are not linguistic at all. They are actual spatio-temporal slices of reality. The fact of JFK's shooting is not any string of words or utterances but rather the actual shooting of JFK. When I say "JFK was shot" it's the facts, the state of reality, that actually make such a proposition true.

Of course, the problem is that some people confuse a "true proposition" or a "truth" with a "fact" but they are quite different and facts are never true or false anymore than a "father" is true or false. Facts and fathers are both things. Something is either a fact or it's not. Something is either a father or it's not. But to say that it is a true fact or a true father is to miss the point completely. Facts and fathers aren't the kinds of things that are true or false.

Facts aren't true anymore than fathers are true. Facts are facts and fathers are fathers. A fact is something that is the case so to question if a fact is the case is the same as calling something a father and then asking if it's ever had any children. If it's a father, it's had children. If it's a fact, it is the case. There's no question involved.


Not how I would put it, but, yes, correct.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:29 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;172463 wrote:
Sentences are what are linguistic, and propositions can be expressed by sentences, but propositions are the truths and falsities about the world.


Agree.

Zetherin;172463 wrote:
And the truths about the world we call facts.


Disagree. Some people call them that but it's a misnomer. Facts are what make propositions true. Facts are states of affairs, physical arrangements.

Zetherin;172463 wrote:
However, I understand your position.


Not quite. You are using "truth" and "fact" interchangeably. A truth is a true proposition. A fact is what makes a proposition true. They aren't the same things.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:32 am
@fast,
Night Ripper wrote:
Not quite. You are using "truth" and "fact" interchangeably. A truth is a true proposition. A fact is what makes a proposition true. They aren't the same things.


Yes, I am using them interchangeably (and I very well may be making a mistake), but I wasn't saying you do (sorry if it appeared as though I was). I do understand your position.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/21/2024 at 04:16:34