No, it is not true that I do not accept the proposition that all truths must be true because I don't accept contradictions (although that would be an excellent reason if the proposition that all truths must be true were contradictory. But it is not contradictory). I don't accept the proposition that all truths must be true because the proposition that all truths must be true is false. Bur, as I just said, it is not true that all truths must be true is a contradiction. It isn't a contradiction. It is only false. As I have given you examples of many truths that need not be true, I won't bother to give you any further examples of truths that need not be true.
kennethamy wrote:No, it is not true that I do not accept the proposition that all truths must be true because I don't accept contradictions (although that would be an excellent reason if the proposition that all truths must be true were contradictory. But it is not contradictory). I don't accept the proposition that all truths must be true because the proposition that all truths must be true is false. Bur, as I just said, it is not true that all truths must be true is a contradiction. It isn't a contradiction. It is only false. As I have given you examples of many truths that need not be true, I won't bother to give you any further examples of truths that need not be true.
It is a relief that you do not give me any further examples of that, since that is not what I am saying anyway. But although "every truth must be true" is not in itself a contradiction, it will soon lead to one, although you are not yet aware of that. But you fell that in your guts, and it is the reason why you reject it from the beginning.
guigus wrote:It is a relief that you do not give me any further examples of that, since that is not what I am saying anyway. But although "every truth must be true" is not in itself a contradiction, it will soon lead to one, although you are not yet aware of that. But you fell that in your guts, and it is the reason why you reject it from the beginning.
It does not lead to a contradiction, and neither do I feel it in my guts, whatever relevance that may have. The statement that every true statement must be true is just false. And I can show it is false since I can give many counterexamples. For your information, a counterexample in this case would be an example of a true statement that need not be true, which is to say, whose negation is not self-contradictory. And I can give any number of examples of true statements whose negations are not self-contradictory. And any one of those statements would show that it is false that every true statement must be true. For I would have given an example of a true statement which need not be true. Therefore, when you assert that every true statement must be true, any of my many counterexamples would show that what you have asserted is false.
"Logic is logic, that's all I can say" (Oliver Wendall Holmes).
However, I must point out to you that it is false that all statements are made true by states of affairs. The statement that all dogs are dogs is a true statement. But there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true. The statement that all bachelors are unmarried males is true, but there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true.
It does not lead to a contradiction, and neither do I feel it in my guts, whatever relevance that may have.
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:It is a relief that you do not give me any further examples of that, since that is not what I am saying anyway. But although "every truth must be true" is not in itself a contradiction, it will soon lead to one, although you are not yet aware of that. But you fell that in your guts, and it is the reason why you reject it from the beginning.
It does not lead to a contradiction, and neither do I feel it in my guts, whatever relevance that may have. The statement that every true statement must be true is just false. And I can show it is false since I can give many counterexamples. For your information, a counterexample in this case would be an example of a true statement that need not be true, which is to say, whose negation is not self-contradictory. And I can give any number of examples of true statements whose negations are not self-contradictory. And any one of those statements would show that it is false that every true statement must be true. For I would have given an example of a true statement which need not be true. Therefore, when you assert that every true statement must be true, any of my many counterexamples would show that what you have asserted is false.
"Logic is logic, that's all I can say" (Oliver Wendall Holmes).
Once again, the statement "every truth must be true" does not mean that "no truth is contingent." Even you had understood that, and you made an interest point by saying:
kennethamy wrote:However, I must point out to you that it is false that all statements are made true by states of affairs. The statement that all dogs are dogs is a true statement. But there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true. The statement that all bachelors are unmarried males is true, but there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true.
Unfortunately, now you forgot all that and resumed that "modal fallacy" crap. By the way, being able to say only that "Logic is logic"... what a petition of intellectual misery, don't you think?
As much as you would not like it to be true, "Every true statement must be true" does mean (or rather imply) that there are no contingent truths. As I have explained to you, words have meanings, and those meanings need not be what you would like them to be. And, as much as you would not like it to be true, logic (including modal logic) is a discipline which is well-understood. And, to talk about "modal logic" crap is like talking about "chemistry crap", or "physics crap". It displays ignorance. Now, although ignorance is unfortunate, it is deplorable only when the ignorant person disparages that of which he is ignorant, and not merely refuses to learn, but is content to be ignorant. Of course, contented ignorance has an unfortunately long history. You are merely a small part of it.
However, I must point out to you that it is false that all statements are made true by states of affairs. The statement that all dogs are dogs is a true statement. But there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true. The statement that all bachelors are unmarried males is true, but there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true.
kennethamy wrote:However, I must point out to you that it is false that all statements are made true by states of affairs. The statement that all dogs are dogs is a true statement. But there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true. The statement that all bachelors are unmarried males is true, but there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true.
I will resume from where we stopped. The above is an interest point, which deserves discussion. So I ask you: what is the difference between "A = A" and "Every dog is a dog"? From the point of view of symbolic logic, none. But we know what a dog is, right? And what about A? What is A? Anything. When we say that "A = A," we are saying that "anything is itself." And what is anything? For that one symbolic logic has no answer. The best it can do is to say that anything is A. Or that anything is, for example, a dog. However, once we go beyond symbolic logic, we will see that anything must be something else than the word "anything," or the symbol "A." Anything has the virtue of pointing to "there" from where the truth of any truth comes out. So that "A = A" means "the word 'anything' (A) points to something (= A), to which it is identical, but which is also different from it." And once we read it that way, we can say that "every truth (A) must be true (= A)" without being redundant or incurring in the "modal fallacy." But only, "of course," if we go beyond symbolic logic.
The difference between "A is A", and "Every dog is a dog' is (as anyone who has any acquaintance with elementary logic knows) is that the former is the customary formulation of one of the three "laws of thought", namely, the law of identity, and the latter sentence is an instantiation of the former. This is something easily looked up, and in the course of looking it up, you may very become familiar with logic, which would do you a lot of good.
The difference between "A is A", and "Every dog is a dog' is (as anyone who has any acquaintance with elementary logic knows) is that the former is the customary formulation of one of the three "laws of thought", namely, the law of identity, and the latter sentence is an instantiation of the former. This is something easily looked up, and in the course of looking it up, you may very become familiar with logic, which would do you a lot of good.
kennethamy wrote:The difference between "A is A", and "Every dog is a dog' is (as anyone who has any acquaintance with elementary logic knows) is that the former is the customary formulation of one of the three "laws of thought", namely, the law of identity, and the latter sentence is an instantiation of the former. This is something easily looked up, and in the course of looking it up, you may very become familiar with logic, which would do you a lot of good.
Now please tell me: do you really believe that calling "A = A" the identity law changes its meaning? So could you please have the delicacy of answering to the argument in my last post, instead of trying to lecture me the "laws of thought"? The only law of thought I obey is: think!
No, I don't think that at all. But why would you think I did. And how does calling A is A a law of thought (which is what it is traditionally called) "change its meaning"? Change its meaning from what to what? As usual, I don't know what you are talking about. You asked be what was the difference between "A is A" and "All dogs are dogs". I told you what that difference is. I said that A is A is the form of a proposition, and all dogs are dogs is a proposition that is an instance of that form. Another example of that is as follows: "If P then Q" is a propositional form, and "If dogs are mammals, then dogs have livers" is an instance of that propositional form. In logic, it is important to distinguish between propositional forms (also called, "propositional functions") and instances of those propositional forms or the propositions themselves. Why don't you do some reading instead of relying on me to teach you logic? Wouldn't you rather do that, or would you really rather talk about something you obviously know nothing about? Doesn't that embarrass you? It would me.
kennethamy wrote:No, I don't think that at all. But why would you think I did. And how does calling A is A a law of thought (which is what it is traditionally called) "change its meaning"? Change its meaning from what to what? As usual, I don't know what you are talking about. You asked be what was the difference between "A is A" and "All dogs are dogs". I told you what that difference is. I said that A is A is the form of a proposition, and all dogs are dogs is a proposition that is an instance of that form. Another example of that is as follows: "If P then Q" is a propositional form, and "If dogs are mammals, then dogs have livers" is an instance of that propositional form. In logic, it is important to distinguish between propositional forms (also called, "propositional functions") and instances of those propositional forms or the propositions themselves. Why don't you do some reading instead of relying on me to teach you logic? Wouldn't you rather do that, or would you really rather talk about something you obviously know nothing about? Doesn't that embarrass you? It would me.
There is no way you will discuss my arguments, is there? My argument is this: "A = A," as far as symbolic logic is concerned, is the same as "every dog is a dog" since, for symbolic logic, "dog" and "A" are just symbols. That is, symbolic logic is not concerned about what a dog is, as far as uttering "every dog is a dog" remains an instance of "A = A." A "dog" can be anything, just like "A." The fact that "every dog is a dog" is just an instance of "A = A" does not make them different: it makes them essentially the same. Given that, could you please read (and answer to) the rest of my argument (in the previous post), instead of trying to make me feel ashamed because you don't understand me?
Of course logic is not concerned with showing what a dog is (whatever that means). Biology is concerned with showing what a dog is. "A is A" and "all dogs are dogs" are related in that the latter is an instance of the former. But they are also different in that the former is the form of the latter. So they are related but different. What is hard to understand about that? I don't understand you because what you write is incomprehensible. If it were not, I would make an effort to discuss it. You don't know a thing about logic, and yet you are attempting to discuss logic. I am not trying to make you ashamed. You should be ashamed of attempting to discuss something you don't know the first thing about. It is a shameful thing to do. Why don't you stop doing it, and attempt to learn something about what you are talking about. I am not trying to make you ashamed. It is you who are embarrassing yourself. Why would you want to talk about something when anyone who has any knowledge of the subject can immediately see that you have not idea what you are talking about. Who could possibly respect you for carrying out what is a sham?
kennethamy wrote:Of course logic is not concerned with showing what a dog is (whatever that means). Biology is concerned with showing what a dog is. "A is A" and "all dogs are dogs" are related in that the latter is an instance of the former. But they are also different in that the former is the form of the latter. So they are related but different. What is hard to understand about that? I don't understand you because what you write is incomprehensible. If it were not, I would make an effort to discuss it. You don't know a thing about logic, and yet you are attempting to discuss logic. I am not trying to make you ashamed. You should be ashamed of attempting to discuss something you don't know the first thing about. It is a shameful thing to do. Why don't you stop doing it, and attempt to learn something about what you are talking about. I am not trying to make you ashamed. It is you who are embarrassing yourself. Why would you want to talk about something when anyone who has any knowledge of the subject can immediately see that you have not idea what you are talking about. Who could possibly respect you for carrying out what is a sham?
Let's forget about shame and discuss the logic. According to you, the expression "A is A" and "all dogs are dogs" are "related in that the latter is an instance of the former. But they are also different in that the former is the form of the latter. So they are related but different." So let's see what you are saying:
1) The identity law is the form of its instances.
2) Hence, its instances are instances of their own form.
By which both the identity law and its instances only deal with the form of thought, not with its content, which is well known by anyone "acquainted with" symbolic logic. Which is precisely what I am saying and you are reputing as a demonstration of ignorance.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:Of course logic is not concerned with showing what a dog is (whatever that means). Biology is concerned with showing what a dog is. "A is A" and "all dogs are dogs" are related in that the latter is an instance of the former. But they are also different in that the former is the form of the latter. So they are related but different. What is hard to understand about that? I don't understand you because what you write is incomprehensible. If it were not, I would make an effort to discuss it. You don't know a thing about logic, and yet you are attempting to discuss logic. I am not trying to make you ashamed. You should be ashamed of attempting to discuss something you don't know the first thing about. It is a shameful thing to do. Why don't you stop doing it, and attempt to learn something about what you are talking about. I am not trying to make you ashamed. It is you who are embarrassing yourself. Why would you want to talk about something when anyone who has any knowledge of the subject can immediately see that you have not idea what you are talking about. Who could possibly respect you for carrying out what is a sham?
Let's forget about shame and discuss the logic. According to you, the expression "A is A" and "all dogs are dogs" are "related in that the latter is an instance of the former. But they are also different in that the former is the form of the latter. So they are related but different." So let's see what you are saying:
1) The identity law is the form of its instances.
2) Hence, its instances are instances of their own form.
By which both the identity law and its instances only deal with the form of thought, not with its content, which is well known by anyone "acquainted with" symbolic logic. Which is precisely what I am saying and you are reputing as a demonstration of ignorance.
No more. It is too much of an effort to try to decipher what you are attempting to say, and the effort is not worth making. My advice to you is to learn some logic. And, while you are at it, try to learn to write more clearly so it isn't such a burden to try to make sense (if there is any sense) of what you say.
Ever heard the term "jump to conclusion" ?
People with dylexia may count wrong, and come up with wrong numbers?
Skitzophrenic people makes unrelyable statements, but it's their truth.
HexHammer wrote:
Ever heard the term "jump to conclusion" ?
People with dylexia may count wrong, and come up with wrong numbers?
You mean dyslexia?
HexHammer wrote:Skitzophrenic people makes unrelyable statements, but it's their truth.
You mean schizophrenic people?
OK then, I was giving up my post and still editing it, but since you already so kindly answered it, being apparently so nervous, let me reproduce it here:
Everything is either true or false (the principle of bivalence) means that nothing can be true while being false (both true and false). Then:
1. Every truth is necessarily not false.
2. Being not false is necessarily being true.
3. Every truth is necessarily true.
Now you have the opportunity to explain what is the logical meaning of your "dyslexia" and "schizophrenia", correctly spelled as well as in logic terms, please.
guigus wrote:1) you know excatly what I mean, even with my misspellings.
HexHammer wrote:
Ever heard the term "jump to conclusion" ?
People with dylexia may count wrong, and come up with wrong numbers?
You mean dyslexia?
HexHammer wrote:Skitzophrenic people makes unrelyable statements, but it's their truth.
You mean schizophrenic people?
OK then, I was giving up my post and still editing it, but since you already so kindly answered it, being apparently so nervous, let me reproduce it here:
Everything is either true or false (the principle of bivalence) means that nothing can be true while being false (both true and false). Then:
1. Every truth is necessarily not false.
2. Being not false is necessarily being true.
3. Every truth is necessarily true.
Now you have the opportunity to explain what is the logical meaning of your "dyslexia" and "schizophrenia", correctly spelled as well as in logic terms, please.
2) you like to confuse youself with pretty rethorics and ill logic.
3) you have a sever case of selective understanding that lack rationallity.
