This sentence is false.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165306 wrote:

It does? It does? But that is exactly what is at issue. So you are simply begging the question.

That's not begging the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you're trying to prove so that you can prove it. I'm not trying to prove that the sentence says its not true. Anyone that can read already knows that's what the sentence says. Can't you read?

1. This sentence is not true.

It looks like it's claiming that it's not true to me. How is being able to read begging the question?

2. This sentence is in English.

3. This sentence is in bold font.

4. This sentence is in underlined font.

As far as I can tell, all these are perfectly fine English sentences. People know what they mean and they respond appropriately to them. If there's something wrong with these sentences could you explain what it is?

Also, assuming you can explain what is "wrong" with them. Since people know what they mean and they work, why should I care that you think they are wrong? They fulfill their intended function and that's what I care about.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165309 wrote:

That's not begging the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you're trying to prove so that you can prove it. I'm not trying to prove that the sentence says its not true. Anyone that can read already knows that's what the sentence says. Can't you read?

1. This sentence is not true.

It looks like it's claiming that it's not true to me. How is being about to read begging the question?

2. This sentence is in English.

3. This sentence is in bold font.

4. This sentence is in underlined font.

As far as I can tell, all these are perfectly fine English sentences. People know what they mean and they respond appropriately to them. If there's something wrong with these sentences could you explain what it is?

You are simply assuming that there is a sentence that we are designating by the demonstrative pronoun, "this (sentence)". But it is exactly that which is being disputed. Which sentence is "this sentence"?

@Night Ripper,

[QUOTE=Night Ripper;165300]The paradox is in the fact that "This sentence is not true" is a true sentence. That's the paradox. We can ignore the issue of falsity and focus on true or not true.[/quote]

Here's my position:

If the sentence fails to express a proposition, then the sentence is neither true nor false. If the sentence does express a proposition, then the sentence is either true or false.

A sentence is true if the proposition expressed by the sentence is true.
A sentence is false if the proposition expressed by the sentence is false.

Hence, a sentence is only true or false if the sentence expresses a proposition; otherwise, the sentence is neither true nor false.

If the proposition expressed by a sentence is false (assuming there is a proposition expressed at all), then the proposition is not only false, but it's also not true as well.

If the proposition expressed by a sentence is true (assuming there is a proposition expressed at all), then the proposition is not only true, but it's not false as well.

If a proposition is false (and thus not true), then the sentence that expressed the proposition is false (and thus not true).

If a proposition is true (and thus not false), then the sentence that expressed the proposition is true (and thus not false).

If we learn (and only learn) that a sentence is not true, then we do not have enough information to determine whether or not the sentence is false. It depends on whether or not a proposition has been expressed by the sentence. If it does, then the sentence is not true because the proposition is false. If it doesn't, then the sentence is not true because no proposition has been expressed.

So, there are two reasons (and not just one reason) for why a sentence may be not true.

You talk about the sentence, "This sentence is not true." You want to know what exactly? That it's true, false, not true, not false? Well, you tell me whether or not it even expresses a proposition, and I'll tell you what it is and why.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165311 wrote:

You are simply assuming that there is a sentence that we are designating by the demonstrative pronoun, "this (sentence)". But it is exactly that which is being disputed. Which sentence is "this sentence"?

So you're telling me that you don't know what "this sentence" refers to when I write...

1. This sentence is in bold.

?

Really? Well, alright then. I wonder if that's common or if it's just a personal defect on your part.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165315 wrote:

So you're telling me that you don't know what "this sentence" refers to when I write...

1. This sentence is in bold.

?

Really? Well, alright then. I wonder if that's common or if it's just a personal defect on your part.

Yes, that is what I am telling you. I know you think you are referring to sentence 1. but I don't see why you should think so. (Do you commit any other fallacies than the strawman fallacy, and begging the question, or do you just specialize in them?).

@fast,

fast;165312 wrote:

You talk about the sentence, "This sentence is not true." You want to know what exactly?

I think you're on the right track here. The problem definitely isn't with "this sentence" since we use that all the time without trouble.

Do you understand what the following sentence means?

1. This sentence is in bold font.

Is that sentence true or false? If you can answer that then the problem is not with "this sentence". The problem is in how we determine the truth or falsity of a sentence. We determine it by some feature of the world or some feature of the sentence itself, which is why we can talk about a particular sentence's number of letters, font, mode of writing, etc, from within that very sentence. The problem only arises when we turn this outward truth-seeking feature of a sentence viciously inward on itself. That's where I think we should be headed with this analysis.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 10:27 AM ----------

Night Ripper wrote:

So you're telling me that you don't know what "this sentence" refers to when I write...

1. This sentence is in bold.

?

Really? Well, alright then. I wonder if that's common or if it's just a personal defect on your part.

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, that is what I am telling you.

Like I said, you have some defect that I and others don't have.

@Gnostic,

edited out

again

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165318 wrote:

Do you understand what the following sentence means?

1. This sentence is in bold font.

Is that sentence true or false? If you can answer that then the problem is not with "this sentence".

Yes, it is easy to see what you have in mind. It certainly easy to believe that 1.(above) is about 1. even if it isn't. After all, what would 1. be about, if not 1.? And if 1. is about 1. then, of course, 1. is true. But that assumes that 1. is about something. And that is exactly the issue. But don't mind that. However, when it comes to 2. This sentence is false, it is not so easy at all. For although it is easy to see that 1 is in bold font, how do you see that 2 is false. What does that even mean? Indeed, what does that even mean is the question, since we can have no idea, in this case, what "this sentence" is referring to. The analogy you make between 1 and 2 simply breaks down exactly where it is supposed to do the work. In the case of 1. we, at least, think we know what "this sentence" refers to (even though that is an illusion). But, in the case of 2. we don't even have the illusion that we know what "this sentence" refers to.

@Night Ripper,

[QUOTE=Night Ripper;165298]

1. This sentence is not true.

If this sentence is both not true and not false then the sentence is true because it says that it's not true but how can it be true that it's not true?

There's still a paradox, you haven't solved anything.[/QUOTE]

I think I understand what Kennethamy was talking about when he said you were begging the question. Consider the sentence, "the cat is on the mat." The sentence isn't true simply because that's what the sentence says. There needs to be some facts in the world that correspond to that sentence. For example, if the cat isn't on the mat, then the sentence isn't true. Note that the facts play a substantial part in all of this.

When you said, "because it says that it's not true," you seem to indicate that facts aren't important and that the sentence alone is enough to determine whether or not the sentence is true.

Of course, the only fact in the world that I can think of would be the sentence itself, since you are using a self-referential sentence. Even still, the sentence isn't true or false simply because it says so. The facts are always what are important.

When I hear you say, "This sentence is not true," I interpret this to mean that the sentence, "this sentence is not true" is not true. Of course, it's not the case that the sentence is not true simply because the sentence says so. What's important are the facts. I don't think there are facts to support the notion that the sentence, "this sentence is not true" is true or false, so it's not the case that it's not true because it says it's not true. It's not true because there are no facts to support the proposition (and all that assume that it even expresses one). If It doesn't, then it's still not true but for a different reason, and the reason certainly isn't because the sentence says so.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165203 wrote:

Something like that.

It's just so ad hoc that it's hardly believable if you think about it.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 07:03 PM ----------

Night Ripper;165298 wrote:

Read this again. I realized that you wouldn't understand how your argument fails so I edited it heavily.

So you're saying that the sentence is both not true and not false. That of course doesn't solve the stronger version of:

1. This sentence is not true.

If this sentence is both not true and not false then the sentence is true because it says that it's not true but how can it be true that it's not true?

There's still a paradox, you haven't solved anything.

That one is called the improved liar paradox, IIRC. At least by G. Priest.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 07:05 PM ----------

kennethamy;165311 wrote:

You are simply assuming that there is a sentence that we are designating by the demonstrative pronoun, "this (sentence)". But it is exactly that which is being disputed. Which sentence is "this sentence"?

I don't know how you could not know which sentence is meant. Perhaps you meant to say that you don't know which proposition is meant? Careful with mixing theories of truth carriers. The mixture is a mess and it gets a lot worse when talking about liar paradoxes.

@Emil,

Emil;165347 wrote:

I don't know how you could not know which sentence is meant. Perhaps you meant to say that you don't know which proposition is meant? Careful with mixing theories of truth carriers. The mixture is a mess and it gets a lot worse when talking about liar paradoxes.

Yes, that is better. There is a sentence there (although I still am not sure "this sentence" refers to it. After all, just because it is the only sentence around doesn't mean that "this sentence" refers to it). But, yes, I prefer "proposition" since it seems to me pretty clear there is no proposition to refer to. What is false? Or, as fast might astutely ask, what would make the proposition, this proposition is false, false?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165380 wrote:

Yes, that is better. There is a sentence there (although I still am not sure "this sentence" refers to it. After all, just because it is the only sentence around doesn't mean that "this sentence" refers to it). But, yes, I prefer "proposition" since it seems to me pretty clear there is no proposition to refer to. What is false?

Yes, it is an assumption that must be made that "this sentence" refers to the sentence which contains "this sentence".

There's also those variations on the paradox, like:

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.

And here we make another assumption that the first sentence is referring to the second sentence, and that the second sentence is referring to the first sentence. But with this example we run into the same problem: what is false, what is true? What is the proposition that is false in the first sentence, and that is true in the second sentence? Sentences can't be true or false in the first place, propositions are what are true or false. But I don't know what the proposition is here either.

These seem to be designed for "philosophers" - give them something to chew on.

@Gnostic,

That would be an apparent contradiction, not true or false. But then, cannot we say "I am lying"?

@jack phil,

jack;165388 wrote:

That would be an apparent contradiction, not true or false. But then, cannot we say "I am lying"?

What is the contradiction?

This is a contradiction:

Mary is married to Phil, and Mary is not married to Phil.

There are two propositions here. One is true and one is false; both cannot be true at the same time, and neither can both be false at the same time.

But what are the propositions in the example noted above?

@jack phil,

jack;165388 wrote:

That would be an apparent contradiction, not true or false. But then, cannot we say "I am lying"?

But can you assert that you are lying, and be lying?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165380 wrote:

Yes, that is better. There is a sentence there (although I still am not sure "this sentence" refers to it. After all, just because it is the only sentence around doesn't mean that "this sentence" refers to it). But, yes, I prefer "proposition" since it seems to me pretty clear there is no proposition to refer to. What is false? Or, as fast might astutely ask, what would make the proposition, this proposition is false, false?

Well, a common way to deal with liar paradoxes is to accept a monistic sentence theory of truth carriers, and then deny that the sentence expresses any proposition. Of course, it is very odd that other similar sentences express propositions yet the liar doesn't. Very odd indeed! That's why the solution is so ad hoc (another latin phrase for you!).

The above is what you seem to be doing. Not surprising. I'm not so sure about it. Maybe I'd go with a limited from of dialetheism.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;165394 wrote:

What is the contradiction?

This is a contradiction:

Mary is married to Phil, and Mary is not married to Phil.

There are two propositions here. One is true and one is false; both cannot be true at the same time, and neither can both be false at the same time.

But what are the propositions in the example noted above?

Consider its opposite: This sentence is true.

Obviously, neither sentence really says anything; and no science is needed in falsifying or proving either; and no Russellian logic could break the sentence down into its constituent parts. For sure, What parts?

This... sentence... is... true.

"This" means the whole sentence; "sentence", likewise; "is" is self-referential; "true" (or "false") can only directed at what can be differentiated. True and false are not like colors or other adjectives. We say "this apple is red" like we "say this sentence is t/f", but it would be absurd to think that because of their apparent similarity in grammar that they are both sensible. One is nonsense, the other a description.

@Gnostic,

How about, this joke is not funny.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;165386 wrote:

Yes, it is an assumption that must be made that "this sentence" refers to the sentence which contains "this sentence".

There's also those variations on the paradox, like:

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.

And here we make another assumption that the first sentence is referring to the second sentence, and that the second sentence is referring to the first sentence. But with this example we run into the same problem: what is false, what is true? What is the proposition that is false in the first sentence, and that is true in the second sentence? Sentences can't be true or false in the first place, propositions are what are true or false. But I don't know what the proposition is here either.

These seem to be designed for "philosophers" - give them something to chew on.

Careful. Again you say things like "Sentences can't be true or false" just like "My car cannot be true or false". I would not use these sentences if I were you. But keep the discussion to the other thread.

Anyway, you have the same tools to identify the propositions with the liar sentences as you have with similar sentences that you do not believe are cognitively meaningless. Why the arbitrary difference? It is ad hoc. Hence why I don't like this proposed solution.

But in any case, if you want to do a proper serious discussion of liar sentences, truth carriers etc., you should put all the relevant sentences/propositions into a Quineian inconsistent set and then evaluate what is really the most plausible solution. I advise you to read Quine's The Web of Belief. Excellent introduction book!

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 09:31 PM ----------

ughaibu;165405 wrote:

How about, this joke is not funny.

I laughed at that. Then what? Very Happy

@Gnostic,

Emil wrote:

Careful. Again you say things like "Sentences can't be true or false" just like "My car cannot be true or false". I would not use these sentences if I were you. But keep the discussion to the other thread.

Actually, if you were me, you would use those sentences. Because I use those sentences.

Why don't you use those sentences, though? What is wrong with saying that X term cannot have the property Y? We of course mean that, in how we commonly use the term, we do not apply that property to said term. It would be similar to someone asserting that a premise was valid. We may tell that person that we don't call premises valid or invalid. We call arguments valid or invalid (among other things), and we call premises true or false. Thereby we may say "Premises cannot be valid or invalid", and it should be understood what was meant.

Quote:

But in any case, if you want to do a proper serious discussion of liar sentences, truth carriers etc., you should put all the relevant sentences/propositions into a Quineian inconsistent set and then evaluate what is really the most plausible solution. I advise you to read Quine's The Web of Belief. Excellent introduction book!

Where do you have your proper serious discussions at, if I may ask?

Philosophy Forum

This sentence is false.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know