0
   

Statement versus proposition

 
 
fast
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 12:11 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;172440 wrote:
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.
I think you are confusing A (a truth) with B (truth).

A fact, or state of affairs, is A (a truth) whereas a true proposition is B (truth).

You may also be confusing facts with objects (too soon to tell). Objects are not said to be true or false. That would be a category error. Facts are said to be true only.
Emil
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 12:36 pm
@fast,
fast;172503 wrote:
I think you are confusing A (a truth) with B (truth).

A fact, or state of affairs, is A (a truth) whereas a true proposition is B (truth).

You may also be confusing facts with objects (too soon to tell). Objects are not said to be true or false. That would be a category error. Facts are said to be true only.


States of affairs cannot meaningfully be said to be true. It's nonsense. By object I'm guessing that you mean concrete objects. If so, then you wrong as your view is inconsistent. You think that some sentences are true. All sentences are concrete objects. Thus, some concrete objects are true. This is inconsistent with no concrete object is true or false.

If that's not what you mean, then I don't know what you meant by "object". In the very loose sense, object is an omniword similar to how many thing people "thing". The most abstract term as anything is a thing. It is incorporated in english.

See also:
Facts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
States of Affairs (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'll read the first one later. It's only some 12000 words. No problem.
0 Replies
 
fast
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 08:40 am
@Zetherin,
[QUOTE=Zetherin;172463]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.[/QUOTE]
Wow! I like the sound of that. Would you like to change "about" to "of" or would you like to keep it "about?"
0 Replies
 
Alan Masterman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 10:01 am
@fast,
"**** me!" is a sentence, but it is not a proposition (at least, not in the recognised philosophical sense!)

According to such philosophical training as I have had, a proposition is a (purported) statement of fact. It may be either true or false.

"Statement" is a word that I have never heard used in any technical sense in philosophy. Only politicians and spokespersons make "statements".

J L Austen's "How to do things with words" makes valuable and entertaining reading, if you want to get one philosopher's viewpoint on non-propositional sentences.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 02:03 AM ----------

What's this? Questionable words get blanked out with asterisks? What price philosophic detachment and ruthless objectivity??
fast
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:41 am
@Alan Masterman,
[QUOTE=Alan Masterman;172976]Only politicians and spokespersons make "statements".[/QUOTE]Are you a politician or spokesperson?

You just made a statement. You made the statement that only politicians and spokespersons make statements.



Gee, that's a rhetorical question, and surely no response was expected by the machine (make that, the programmers of the machine), yet, it's still a question as all rhetorical questions are questions. Or at least, all rhetorical sentences should end with a question mark.

Where I'm going with this is that the rhetorical question served as a statement (or proposition) that is either true or false. It was their intent to make a statement, and it was no less a statement just because it was worded in the form of a question.

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 01:48 PM ----------

Emil;172516 wrote:
States of affairs cannot meaningfully be said to be true. It's nonsense. By object I'm guessing that you mean concrete objects. If so, then you wrong as your view is inconsistent. You think that some sentences are true. All sentences are concrete objects. Thus, some concrete objects are true. This is inconsistent with no concrete object is true or false.

If that's not what you mean, then I don't know what you meant by "object". In the very loose sense, object is an omniword similar to how many thing people "thing". The most abstract term as anything is a thing. It is incorporated in english.

See also:
Facts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
States of Affairs (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'll read the first one later. It's only some 12000 words. No problem.


Consider the following fact: A rock is on the ground.

Do you think the rock is a fact? I don't. I think it's an object.

ETA: maybe I should say consider the following fact: A rock on the ground. [I dropped the word "is."]
Alan Masterman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:11 pm
@fast,
"You made the statement that only politicians and spokespersons make statements."

That's a proposition. It purports to describe a fact, and it can be verified or falsified by an appeal to evidence. The word "statement" may be good enough for Eng Lit, or Soc Stud, but it won't do for physics, or philosophy, or mathematics, where you have to be surgically precise with your terminology.
fast
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 04:23 pm
@Alan Masterman,
[QUOTE=Zetherin;172455]True Proposition = Truth = Fact[/QUOTE]
I have color coded your post. If they are not all the same color, then they shouldn't be regarded as the same.

Fact = State of affairs = A truth = Truth-maker

Truth = True Proposition = Truth-bearer

Emil introduced the term "truth-carrier;" I suspect he means "Truth-bearer," but then again, I don't know the difference or implications between them. If all propositions are truth-bearers, then false propositions are truth-bearers; thence, truth-bearer shouldn't be red (or blue).

A little story to bring it all together:

I walked into the house and saw that the cat was not on the mat, yet I turned to Ms. Fast and uttered the sentence, "The cat is on the mat," that conveyed the proposition, "The cat is on the mat." Yes, I lied.

Ms. Fast (not knowing I lied) put on her red hat and began to wonder: 1) Was I telling the truth, 2) Did what I say convey a true proposition, and 3) Did the proposition indeed bear any truth about the world?

Then, she decided to wonder no longer and looked to the world to see if I did all those things she wondered about (not that they're all that different, mind you).

So, she went to look for just what would make it true: a truth maker. By "make," I mean indicate. It should be called a truth indicator (I propose), for only the fact that the cat is on the mat would indicate that it's true that the cat is on the mat. She looked to see if there was indeed a truth in the world that corresponds with the proposition expressed by the sentence I uttered.

Though she looked and looked, it was to no avail. Never would she have found a truth corresponding to the purported truth that the cat was on the mat, for the cat was not on the mat. It was off the mat and drinking 2% milk--that was the true state of [the worldly] affairs.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 04:51 pm
@fast,
fast;173103 wrote:

I have color coded your post. If they are not all the same color, then they shouldn't be regarded as the same.

Fact = State of affairs = A truth = Truth-maker

Truth = True Proposition = Truth-bearer


A truth and a true proposition are the same thing. Truth is general and a truth is particular. It's like cars vs. a car.
Emil
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 05:44 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173113 wrote:
A truth and a true proposition are the same thing. Truth is general and a truth is particular. It's like cars vs. a car.


More like car vs. a car. Still, you are right.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 01:50 AM ----------

fast;172992 wrote:

Consider the following fact: A rock is on the ground.

Do you think the rock is a fact? I don't. I think it's an object.

ETA: maybe I should say consider the following fact: A rock on the ground. [I dropped the word "is."]


No, I do not. It is gibberish to say "the rock is a fact". And yes it is an object. If there is a point, then I don't see it. I only said that your web of beliefs imply that some objects are true/false and that you at the same time claim that it is meaningless to say that. That is inconsistent.

Fast wrote:
Objects are not said to be true or false. That would be a category error. Facts are said to be true only.


Short version:

You think it is nonsense to say of any object that it is true or false. Quoted just above.

You think some objects, that is sentences, are true or false.

This is inconsistent. (Because being the case implies meaningfulness.)

You have to change some beliefs to get out of the inconsistency. What will you do?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 02:04 AM ----------

fast;173103 wrote:

I have color coded your post. If they are not all the same color, then they shouldn't be regarded as the same.

Fact = State of affairs = A truth = Truth-maker

Truth = True Proposition = Truth-bearer

Emil introduced the term "truth-carrier;" I suspect he means "Truth-bearer," but then again, I don't know the difference or implications between them. If all propositions are truth-bearers, then false propositions are truth-bearers; thence, truth-bearer shouldn't be red (or blue).

A little story to bring it all together:

I walked into the house and saw that the cat was not on the mat, yet I turned to Ms. Fast and uttered the sentence, "The cat is on the mat," that conveyed the proposition, "The cat is on the mat." Yes, I lied.

Ms. Fast (not knowing I lied) put on her red hat and began to wonder: 1) Was I telling the truth, 2) Did what I say convey a true proposition, and 3) Did the proposition indeed bear any truth about the world?

Then, she decided to wonder no longer and looked to the world to see if I did all those things she wondered about (not that they're all that different, mind you).

So, she went to look for just what would make it true: a truth maker. By "make," I mean indicate. It should be called a truth indicator (I propose), for only the fact that the cat is on the mat would indicate that it's true that the cat is on the mat. She looked to see if there was indeed a truth in the world that corresponds with the proposition expressed by the sentence I uttered.

Though she looked and looked, it was to no avail. Never would she have found a truth corresponding to the purported truth that the cat was on the mat, for the cat was not on the mat. It was off the mat and drinking 2% milk--that was the true state of [the worldly] affairs.


"truth carrier" and "truth bearer" mean the same. I prefer the first because it is easier for me to type on the keyboard.

I wonder what the equal signs are supposed to mean.

Obviously not all truth carriers are true. Some are false. These are called falsehoods. Truth carriers is a superset of truths, and of falsehoods. Falsehoods is a subset of truth carriers. Truths is a subset of truth carriers. If you want to do sets and categories and stuff, do it via images.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7230/screenhunter01jun050202.jpg
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 07:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;171801 wrote:
A proposition is a truth-bearer; it describes a truth or falsity about the world. I'm assuming this won't suffice, but there it is.


Hey Zeth, doesn't this also qualify as a bit? I feel that there is something logically/mathematically fundamental about the bit. And here we are using bit-based computers to communicate on the matter. Yes/No, True/False, One/Zero. Interesting....Smile
0 Replies
 
fast
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 12:07 pm
@fast,
[QUOTE=Emil;173131]You think it is nonsense to say of any object that it is true or false. Quoted just above.[/QUOTE]The word "nonsense" is a bit too strong for my tastes. I wouldn't say it's nonsenical to say of certain sentences that they are true no more than I would say that of certain beliefs that they are true. If Kennethamy tells me that some beliefs are true, then my objection is not going to be that beliefs are not the kind of things that can be true. A person that says that a sentence is true or that a belief is true isn't spouting nonsense, in my opinion, especially if I can make complete sense of what's being said. What you seem to question is whether or not it's a category mistake to say such things, but it seems to me that we shouldn't be too hastey in calling something a category error if there is sensible interpretation value to what's being said.

[QUOTE]You think some objects, that is sentences, are true or false. [/QUOTE]As a general rule, speaking of objects as if they have a truth values is a mistake (in particular, a category error), but whether exceptions apply (or should be made) hasn't been settled has it?

[QUOTE]I wonder what the equal signs are supposed to mean. [/QUOTE]I was mostly just following Zetherin's appoach where I supposed he was lumping the terms together as if they were sufficiently equivalent (loosely speaking).

My color scheme was to indicate that we were clearly dealing with two very different things that shouldn't be confused: 1) a fact (or a truth)-or truths and 2) truth (or the truth). We cannot speak the truth (2) unless there is a truth (1) that makes it so.

[QUOTE]Obviously not all truth carriers are true. Some are false. These are called falsehoods. Truth carriers is a superset of truths, and of falsehoods. Falsehoods is a subset of truth carriers. Truths is a subset of truth carriers. If you want to do sets and categories and stuff, do it via images.[/QUOTE]The thing that so many people seem interested in (truth, or the truth) (which is what I want highlighted in red for comparitive purposes) ought not be confused with propositions (aka truth bearers/carriers) since not all propositions are true. The truth is a true proposition, so I would highlight both truth and true propositions as red, but it was a mistake of me to highlight truth bearers.

What I want to compare to truth (that which is in red) is exactly what I want in blue, but I only want to compare it to truth-makers (or what we call facts or states of affairs).

The disaggreement isn't that facts are truth-makers and that they are what gives rise to the truth (or true propositions). The hurdle we seem to be facing is when it's appropriate to say of something that it's a category error. Well, that and a few side issues.
0 Replies
 
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 08:10 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

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.


Z--, I am in agreement with Night Ripper on this one.

You said, "True Proposition = Truth = Fact."

But the problem immediately arises (similar to the one Russell faced) of how to account for false propositions if no proposition is linguistic, as you say, but just is a "fact." How can there exist false propositions on your account?
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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 05:40:55