This sentence is false.

@Gnostic,

Gnostic;165118 wrote:

Well, what do you say? True or false?

The problem with the sentence is that it claims itself as a lie, which is fundamentally an honest statement, thus making the statement a lie, continue infinitely.

Inherently, any statement MAKES itself to be honest, and to come and state such is a lie is a contradiction in principle of what a statement and furthermore what a lie is.

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;167087]Wait, so cognitively meaningful means that the sentence is either true or false? Please explicitly define the term if this is not what you mean. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
I think you just pretty much summed it up. To say of a sentence that it's cognitively meaningful is to say of a sentence that it has a truth value (i.e. true or false).

We know that with propositions that there is no middle ground. If they aren't true, then they're false--no third option ... no middle ground ... thus, the categories true and false appear collectively exhaustive.

Such is not the case with sentences. With sentences, there is a middle ground. So with sentences, there is a third option. Thus, the categories of true and false are not collectively exhaustive.

Interestingly, all propositions are true or not true (just like sentences), but for every proposition you show me that's not true, I'll show you one that's false. This works with propositions, for all false propositions are not true and vice versa: all propositions that are not true are false propositions.

Anyhow, and back to the point: some sentences are cognitively meaningful (true or false), but all propositions are cognitively meaningful.

And to expound upon what Emil said, meaningful doesn't imply cognitively meaningful, but incidentally, the inverse is true, for if a sentence is cognitively meaning, it's meaningful.

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;167618 wrote:

The problem with the sentence is that it claims itself as a lie, which is fundamentally an honest statement, thus making the statement a lie, continue infinitely.

Inherently, any statement MAKES itself to be honest, and to come and state such is a lie is a contradiction in principle of what a statement and furthermore what a lie is.

Is this supposed to be an answer to the liar paradox?

Besides, a lie is not necessarily a false statement. To lie is to tell something that you think is false with the intention to deceive. Sometimes people tell a truth when they lie, because they were wrong about that which they lied about.

@Emil,

Emil;168086 wrote:

Is this supposed to be an answer to the liar paradox?
Besides, a lie is not necessarily a false statement.

I never made a statement to falsity of a lie.

Quote:

To lie is to tell something that you think is false with the intention to deceive.

Yes...

Quote:

Sometimes people tell a truth when they lie, because they were wrong about that which they lied about.

And...?

What does all this have to do with my post? I apologize if you couldn't understand it, I'll try again.

A statement makes itself to be honest inherently. If I state something, even if the statement is of a sarcastic nature, the intention of the statement is still honest, as the falsity of statement is still clearly indicated.

The issue with the liars paradox is it admittedly deceives, which is a paradox. An idea cannot admit deception in itself, or else it's not deception.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

@Gnostic,

Native Skeptic wrote:

A statement makes itself to be honest inherently. If I state something, even if the statement is of a sarcastic nature, the intention of the statement is still honest, as the falsity of statement is still clearly indicated.

The issue with the liars paradox is it admittedly deceives, which is a paradox. An idea cannot admit deception in itself, or else it's not deception.

What? Statements are not honest inherently. How would they be? The honesty of a statement depends upon the intention of the person giving the statement. If the person intends to deceive, it is not an honest statement (it could still be a true statement, mind you).

@Native Skeptic,

[QUOTE=Native Skeptic;168153]A statement makes itself to be honest inherently. [/QUOTE]A lie is the utterance of a falsehood with the intent to deceive. Statements do not intend to deceive, so if there is any intentional deception, let us place blame on the person making the statement and not the statement itself.

However, we do say things like statements are deceptive, but never do we say things like statements intend to deceive. I'm having trouble interpretting what you mean when you say, "A statement makes itself to be honest inherently?"

[QUOTE]If I state something, even if the statement is of a sarcastic nature, the intention of the statement is still honest, as the falsity of statement is still clearly indicated. [/QUOTE]I don't think we should characterize statements as having intentions.

[QUOTE]The issue with the liars paradox is it admittedly deceives, which is a paradox. An idea cannot admit deception in itself, or else it's not deception. [/QUOTE]Just because a statement can lead to a contradiction, that's not to say the statement has intentions.

@fast,

fast;168162 wrote:

A lie is the utterance of a falsehood with the intent to deceive. Statements do not intend to deceive, so if there is any intentional deception, let us place blame on the person making the statement and not the statement itself.

I didn't know I'd be arguing my wording.

Very well, a person does not make a statement with the intent of implying deception.

Quote:

However, we do say things like statements are deceptive, but never do we say things like statements intend to deceive.

An intent of deception and being deceptive is synonymous in this context.

[quote]
I'm having trouble interpretting what you mean when you say, "A statement makes itself to be honest inherently?"[/quote]Well, when one states something to another, one intends for that statement to taken honestly, deception is not something one would imply in a statement. Implying deception is self defeating.

Quote:

I don't think we should characterize statements as having intentions.

I'm still curious to the significance of such choice in wording.

Quote:

Just because a statement can lead to a contradiction, that's not to say the statement has intentions.

All statements at least are stated through an intent, usually to pass information.

Every statement made would imply a presumption of honesty, for example, if I were to tell you "I will meet you at the Coffee Shop at 9PM." It is implied I want you to believe I will, and thus, if I stated that this is in fact not true, the whole point of the statement becomes meaningless, and pointless in conveying information.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 02:26 PM ----------

Zetherin;168156 wrote:

What? Statements are not honest inherently. How would they be? The honesty of a statement depends upon the intention of the person giving the statement. If the person intends to deceive, it is not an honest statement (it could still be a true statement, mind you).

:poke-eye:

Reread my post one more time. I didn't say it is inherently honest, I said it is intended to be taken as honest. When one tells a lie, one expects people to believe it is the truth, and thus, think it is a honest statement. One would not tell a lie and state it as lie, that would be self defeating.

@Native Skeptic,

[QUOTE=Native Skeptic;168181]I didn't know I'd be arguing my wording.

Very well, a person does not make a statement with the intent of implying deception.

An intent of deception and being deceptive is synonymous in this context.

Well, when one states something to another, one intends for that statement to taken honestly, deception is not something one would imply in a statement. Implying deception is self defeating.

I'm still curious to the significance of such choice in wording.
All statements at least are stated through an intent, usually to pass information.

Every statement made would imply a presumption of honesty, for example, if I were to tell you "I will meet you at the Coffee Shop at 9PM." It is implied I want you to believe I will, and thus, if I stated that this is in fact not true, the whole point of the statement becomes meaningless, and pointless in conveying information.[/QUOTE]I think I see what you're saying. A police interrogator often lies when interrogating suspects, but be what he says true or false, he wants the suspect to think each statement the interrogator makes to be believed. As you suggest, it would certainly undermine his purpose if he were to inform the suspect each time he's was being deceptive--as that wouldn't be very deceptive would it!

However, your optimism needs to be toned down a bit. Not every utterance made is intended to be thought of as true. Consider a classroom setting where a teacher is trying to expound on an issue without espousing any position. If this were an English class, I might ask what the subject was of the sentence, "This sentence is false." The fact that the sentence has been uttered isn't to say that a statement has therefore been made. Hence, it may very well be that the speaker of that sentence never intended to express a proposition at all. Rather, I simply 'propped it up' for review.

While in class, you are asked to consider the following sentences and tell me what the predicates are:

"The capital of the United States is Key Largo."
"The capital of the United States is Key West."
"The capital of the United States is Long Key."

Are you going to tell the dean that I have been making false statements regarding the capital of the United States? No, for I have made no statements regarding the capital of the United States.

Now, tell me if those examples are true or false? This is the tricky part. They appear to be sentences expressing false propositions, but that a proposition is what is expressed by a sentence isn't to say that the sentences in question are expressing a proposition, for though sentences do express propositions, they do not do that without a speaker that's making statements.*

*this last paragraph is just me testing the waters.

@fast,

fast;168547 wrote:

However, your optimism needs to be toned down a bit.

Optimism? In what way?

[quote] Not every utterance made is intended to be thought of as true. Consider a classroom setting where a teacher is trying to expound on an issue without espousing any position. If this were an English class, I might ask what the subject was of the sentence, "This sentence is false." The fact that the sentence has been uttered isn't to say that a statement has therefore been made. Hence, it may very well be that the speaker of that sentence never intended to express a proposition at all. Rather, I simply 'propped it up' for review.[/quote]I had thought the paradox had to do with the sentence as a statement, I don't think the paradox is relevant otherwise.

Quote:

While in class, you are asked to consider the following sentences and tell me what the predicates are:

"The capital of the United States is Key Largo."
"The capital of the United States is Key West."
"The capital of the United States is Long Key."

Are you going to tell the dean that I have been making false statements regarding the capital of the United States? No, for I have made no statements regarding the capital of the United States.

That's all well and good, but obscure sentences meant to teach children about sentence structure are not exactly relevant to the paradox.

Quote:

Now, tell me if those examples are true or false? This is the tricky part. They appear to be sentences expressing false propositions, but that a proposition is what is expressed by a sentence isn't to say that the sentences in question are expressing a proposition, for though sentences do express propositions, they do not do that without a speaker that's making statements.*

*this last paragraph is just me testing the waters.

As statements they are false. They're proper sentences, but that's not exactly the same.

@Native Skeptic,

[QUOTE=Native Skeptic;168562]I had thought the paradox had to do with the sentence as a statement, I don't think the paradox is relevant otherwise.[/QUOTE]But that's just it. If there is no statement, then there is no proposition. It's just a sentence being put on display for our review.

Even if one intends for a proposition to be expressed by the utterance of a sentence, that is no guarantee that a proposition will therefore be expressed.

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;168153 wrote:

I never made a statement to falsity of a lie.

Yes...
And...?

What does all this have to do with my post? I apologize if you couldn't understand it, I'll try again.

Your post used the concept of a lie. I just clarified it. Not all replies to your posts contradict your post in some way. Smile

Quote:

A statement makes itself to be honest inherently. If I state something, even if the statement is of a sarcastic nature, the intention of the statement is still honest, as the falsity of statement is still clearly indicated.

The issue with the liars paradox is it admittedly deceives, which is a paradox. An idea cannot admit deception in itself, or else it's not deception.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

I'm sorry. I have no clue what sentences/phrases like "A statement makes itself to be honest inherently.", "the intention of the statement is still honest", "An idea cannot admit deception in itself, or else it's not deception.". It like talking of undead cars implying flowers.

@Emil,

Hi,

I am a newcomer here in the PF, and I would like to comment on this last post. First, I would like to consider that every truth must be true since, if it were untrue, then it would not be a truth. Which is the best way to show the necessary truth of any truth. Such necessary truth is precisely what some refer to as the implicit assertion of its own truth by any statement, either true or false. Any statement implicitly asserts its own truth, otherwise it cannot assert anything. This is its necessary truth, by which alone it is falsifiable. A liar statement is no exception: it also implicitly asserts its own truth, despite explicitly asserting both its own truth and falsity. We should give this necessary truth of any truth a much deeper consideration than it is usually given: it holds the key to a door that remains closed for a very long time now. To see how strange the necessary truth of any truth is, it is enough to ask: how a truth can be anything else? How can itself have a truth, if it is already a truth? And how could a truth be necessarily true but actually false, as indeed all falsehoods are? However, to resist the temptation to reduce that necessity to a mere redundancy, we should just remember: if any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. Then, there is again our double truth as the very condition of truth, as clear and distinct as Decartes could ever want it.

@guigus,

guigus;173766 wrote:

Hi,

I am a newcomer here in the PF, and I would like to comment on this last post. First, I would like to consider that every truth must be true since, if it were untrue, then it would not be a truth. Which is the best way to show the necessary truth of any truth. Such necessary truth is precisely what some refer to as the implicit assertion of its own truth by any statement, either true or false. Any statement implicitly asserts its own truth, otherwise it cannot assert anything. This is its necessary truth, by which alone it is falsifiable. A liar statement is no exception: it also implicitly asserts its own truth, despite explicitly asserting both its own truth and falsity. We should give this necessary truth of any truth a much deeper consideration than it is usually given: it holds the key to a door that remains closed for a very long time now. To see how strange the necessary truth of any truth is, it is enough to ask: how a truth can be anything else? How can itself have a truth, if it is already a truth? And how could a truth be necessarily true but actually false, as indeed all falsehoods are? However, to resist the temptation to reduce that necessity to a mere redundancy, we should just remember: if any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. Then, there is again our double truth as the very condition of truth, as clear and distinct as Decartes could ever want it.

That's a modal fallacy.

'The' Modal Fallacy - Prof. Norman Swartz

@Gnostic,

This thread is no good.

@Render,

Render;173958 wrote:

This thread is no good.

Ah, cool. I hadn't noticed. Thanks!

@Emil,

Emil;173968 wrote:

Ah, cool. I hadn't noticed. Thanks!

there is a button for that Wink

@Emil,

Emil;173800 wrote:

That's a modal fallacy.

'The' Modal Fallacy - Prof. Norman Swartz

I did not write that if any truth were CONTINGENT, then it would not be a truth. I wrote that if any truth were UNTRUE, then it would not be a truth. Do you know of a truth capable of being untrue while still being true? Hence the necessary truth of any truth.

@guigus,

guigus;174065 wrote:

It would be a modal fallacy if the truth of any truth were not necessary. However, since by being untrue a truth ceases to be what it is, then it must be true. This is an internal necessity, which stems from the concept of truth itself. Do you really think that a truth remains a truth by being untrue?

Necessarily, all true propositions are true, but not all true propositions are necessarily true. There's is an extremely subtle difference that leads a lot of people to commit "the" modal fallacy.

@Gnostic,

Gnostic;165118 wrote:

Well, what do you say? True or false?

neutral

since the sentence has no content

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;174072 wrote:

Necessarily, all true propositions are true, but not all true propositions are necessarily true. There's is an extremely subtle difference that leads a lot of people to commit "the" modal fallacy.

That's it. As you say, necessarily, all true propositions are true. If you just forget about propositions, and focus only on truth itself, you get: if any truth were untrue, than it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. In fact, this has only to do with propositions because and as long as it has to do with truth. It is essential to read what I wrote without inserting words that are not there. I did not use the word "proposition." I wrote about truth alone. I did not wrote about the truth of any proposition, either true or false. I wrote about the necessary truth of any truth. If it is a truth, then it must be true. That's all. It is important to forget about propositions because truth is much more than propositions. I am true (or false). Beings are true (or false). Truth applies to everything, not only to propositions.

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 01:08 AM ----------

Render;173958 wrote:

This thread is no good.

I bet you thing the same of many other things.

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 01:12 AM ----------

Night Ripper;174072 wrote:

Necessarily, all true propositions are true, but not all true propositions are necessarily true. There's is an extremely subtle difference that leads a lot of people to commit "the" modal fallacy.

Philosophically, "the" modal fallacy is also known as determinism. My view of the world is not deterministic.

Philosophy Forum

This sentence is false.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know