This sentence is false.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166176 wrote:

This sentence has five words.

Anyone that claims not to know which sentence the "this sentence" refers to is either lying or stupid.

And that's it, goddammit! What an argument1 What an arguer! Vox Dei. I take it that you believe you know what sentence it refers to. And that's fine. Now, justify that what you believe you know you do know. Aren't you embarrassed to write what you just wrote? Anyway, I am not claiming not to know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. What I am saying is there is no reason to think it refers to any sentence at all. To say I am claiming not to know which sentence "this sentence" refers to supposes that "this sentence" refers to any sentence. And that is just what I am denying. Do try to grasp this not too subtle point.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166179 wrote:

And that's it, goddammit! What an argument1 What an arguer! Vox Dei. I take it that you believe you know what sentence it refers to. And that's fine. Now, justify that what you believe you know you do know. Aren't you embarrassed to write what you just wrote? Anyway, I am not claiming not to know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. What I am saying is there is no reason to think it refers to any sentence at all. To say I am claiming not to know which sentence "this sentence" refers to supposes that "this sentence" refers to any sentence. And that is just what I am denying. Do try to grasp this not too subtle point.

Lying or stupid.

@Gnostic,

kennethamy wrote:

Anyway, I am not claiming not to know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. What I am saying is there is no reason to think it refers to any sentence at all.

Since you're not claiming that you do not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to, then I will infer that you do know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. And, if that is the case, then you must have a reason to think it refers to a sentence (because if you didn't have a reason you wouldn't have any justification and therefore couldn't know).

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166243 wrote:

Lying or stupid.

Or trolling. :devilish:

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 09:06 AM ----------

Zetherin;166246 wrote:

Since you're not claiming that you do not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to, then I will infer that you do know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. And, if that is the case, then you must have a reason to think it refers to a sentence (because if you didn't have a reason you wouldn't have any justification and therefore couldn't know).

1. Ken claims not to know to which sentence the sentence refers to.
Thus 2. Ken does not know to which sentence the sentence refers to.
Thus 3. Ken has a reason to think that it refers to a sentence.

That seems like your argument.
(2) is a reasonable inductive inference.
(3) I have no idea why you think works.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 09:09 AM ----------

Night Ripper;166176 wrote:

This sentence has five words.

Anyone that claims not to know which sentence the "this sentence" refers to is either lying or stupid.

Other good ways are:

Handing someone a sheet of paper with only one sentence on it.

Writing only a single sentence in a post and then referring to the sentence in that post.

Putting only a single sentence in another font and referring to the sentence in x font in this thread.

Quote:

Quoting the sentence.

[INDENT]The sentence marked by indent.

[/INDENT][RIGHT]The sentence which is aligned to the right.
[/RIGHT]

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;166246 wrote:

Since you're not claiming that you do not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to, then I will infer that you do know which sentence "this sentence" refers to.

Why ever would you draw that inference? If I don't claim I don't know how old you are, would you infer from that that I do claim to know how old you are?

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 09:18 AM ----------

Emil;166337 wrote:

Or trolling. :devilish:

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 09:06 AM ----------

Or trying to make the point that inasmuch as it makes no sense to assert "this sentence is false" because the demonstrative, "this sentence" has no function in that context, that this particular self-referential puzzle is, as Wittengenstein might say, "Built on a house of cards". One more instance when an investigation into aetiology dissolves the problem. But does not, of course, solve the problem which never really existed in the first place. We had merely to "show the fly out of the fly-bottle". But doing that is not, itself, "mere".

One man's trolling may be another man's misunderstanding of what is really going on.

@Gnostic,

kennethamy wrote:

Why ever would you draw that inference? If I don't claim I don't know how old you are, would you infer from that that I do claim to know how old you are?

In this case, I don't understand how you would not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. So, I am more inclined to believe you do know which sentence it refers to.

Do you really not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to? And are you sure you aren't confusing "sentence" with "proposition"?

Emil wrote:

1. Ken claims not to know to which sentence the sentence refers to.
Thus 2. Ken does not know to which sentence the sentence refers to.
Thus 3. Ken has a reason to think that it refers to a sentence.

That seems like your argument.

That's not my argument.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;166444 wrote:

In this case, I don't understand how you would not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to. So, I am more inclined to believe you do know which sentence it refers to.

Do you really not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to? And are you sure you aren't confusing "sentence" with "proposition"?

As I said, I know to which sentence people believe "this sentence" refers to. But that is not the same thing. There is no proposition.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166447 wrote:

As I said, I know to which sentence people believe "this sentence" refers to. But that is not the same thing. There is no proposition.

"Oh, it looks meaningful and people use it meaningfully and it actually works for effective communication and it looks just like a proposition but it's not really a proposition because... well, for no reason, I just feel it in my bones."

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166449 wrote:

"Oh, it looks meaningful and people use it meaningfully and it actually works for effective communication and it looks just like a proposition but it's not really a proposition because... well, for no reason, I just feel it in my bones."

What is the "it" that "looks meaningful, etc.?". And how do people "use it for effective communication"? What are you talking about?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166450 wrote:

What is the "it" that "looks meaningful, etc.?". And how do people "use it for effective communication"? What are you talking about?

Don't worry about it. It's not like you'd have any brilliant insights to offer us even if you weren't feigning ignorance.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 09:14 AM ----------

Emil;166337 wrote:

1. Ken claims not to know to which sentence the sentence refers to.

No, Zetherin wrote, "Since you're not claiming that you do not know which sentence 'this sentence' refers to". Emphasis mine. You left out a "not".

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166451 wrote:

Don't worry about it. It's not like you'd have any brilliant insights to offer us even if you weren't feigning ignorance.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 09:14 AM ----------

So, what is the "it" that has all these marvelous properties? It cannot be, "this sentence is false", since you claimed that people communicate with it, and, of course, they do not.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166455 wrote:

So, what is the "it" that has all these marvelous properties? It cannot be, "this sentence is false", since you claimed that people communicate with it, and, of course, they do not.

Do you have memory problems? See post #100.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166456 wrote:

Do you have memory problems? See post #100.

The term, "it" is not as specific as you seem to think it is. Indeed, it changes with each referent. En tout cas are you telling me that people communicate with the sentence, "This sentence has five words."? Which people are those? It may be, of course, that after a sentence has already been mentioned, someone may say, truly or falsely, "This (more likely "that") sentence has five words". But certainly not out of the blue, as you are supposing.
Haven't you been reading the other posts this thread? That the sentence has meaning when, and only when some other sentence exists has been pointed out a number of times.
Follow the yellow brick road, oh follow the yellow brick road, oh follow, oh follow, follow oh follow, oh, follow the yellow brick road.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166459 wrote:

The term, "it" is not as specific as you seem to think it is. Indeed, it changes with each referent.

Oh my god, you're a retard. Just go away and stop talking to me. Please.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166461 wrote:

Oh my god, you're a retard. Just go away and stop talking to me. Please.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that unless you can say something nice, you shouldn't say it at all?
There is always the ignore function of Emile desire. You can use it, Then you will understand even less than now.

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;166246]Since you're not claiming that you do not know which sentence "this sentence" refers to, then I will infer that you do know which sentence "this sentence" refers to.[/QUOTE]Kennethamy doesn't know which sentence is being referred to because Kennethamy doesn't know that a sentence is in fact being referred to at all--and that's because Kennethamy thinks no sentence is in fact being referred to at all.

For example. He doesn't know that cat refers to a particular cat because he doesn't know that cat even refers. What he does happen to know is that the word "cat" refers and that referents of terms do not refer.

To put it another way, what's coming to Kennethamy's mind is the fact that knowledge implies truth. Kennethamy can't know what Night Ripper thinks Night Ripper knows because Night Ripper doesn't know what Night Ripper thinks Night Ripper knows.

Another thing, and I may be wrong, but I believe this may be one of those times where the word "refer" is being equivocated. Yes, Night Ripper is referring to a sentence, and it's the very same sentence Kennethamy knows that others believe is being referred to by "this sentence," but we need to remain cognizant of the fact that (and speak as we might), there is a difference in desperate need of our appreciation, and that is the difference between 1) a person that refers and 2) a noun phrase that refers.

It's clear that Night Ripper fully intends to refer to the same sentence in which the noun phrase, "this sentence" is within, but just becuase he is referring to the sentence doesn't imply (nor should it be understood to imply) that the noun phrase is therefore referring to that same sentence, for it might just be the case that it either refers to another sentence or as Kennethamy has stated: that it doesn't even refer at all.

@fast,

fast;166487 wrote:

Kennethamy doesn't know which sentence is being referred to because Kennethamy doesn't know that a sentence is in fact being referred to at all--and that's because Kennethamy thinks no sentence is in fact being referred to at all.

For example. He doesn't know that cat refers to a particular cat because he doesn't know that cat even refers. What he does happen to know is that the word "cat" refers and that referents of terms do not refer.

To put it another way, what's coming to Kennethamy's mind is the fact that knowledge implies truth. Kennethamy can't know what Night Ripper thinks Night Ripper knows because Night Ripper doesn't know what Night Ripper thinks Night Ripper knows.

Another thing, and I may be wrong, but I believe this may be one of those times where the word "refer" is being equivocated. Yes, Night Ripper is referring to a sentence, and it's the very same sentence Kennethamy knows that others believe is being referred to by "this sentence," but we need to remain cognizant of the fact that (and speak as we might), there is a difference in desperate need of our appreciation, and that is the difference between 1) a person that refers and 2) a noun phrase that refers.

It's clear that Night Ripper fully intends to refer to the same sentence in which the noun phrase, "this sentence" is within, but just becuase he is referring to the sentence doesn't imply (nor should it be understood to imply) that the noun phrase is therefore referring to that same sentence, for it might just be the case that it either refers to another sentence or as Kennethamy has stated: that it doesn't even refer at all.

Just a wee bit recondite, but if I get it, I agree.

@Gnostic,

fast wrote:

It's clear that Night Ripper fully intends to refer to the same sentence in which the noun phrase, "this sentence" is within, but just becuase he is referring to the sentence doesn't imply (nor should it be understood to imply) that the noun phrase is therefore referring to that same sentence, for it might just be the case that it either refers to another sentence or as Kennethamy has stated: that it doesn't even refer at all.

It could be in reference to another sentence, and it could not refer at all, but I think we have good reason to believe it does refer and that it does refer to the sentence in which "this sentence" is present. A good reason would be, among many, that in this particular paradox, that is the assumption that is to be made. Another good reason is that it is common in language when we use the phrase "this X" to refer to the thing in which the phrase is in, or related to (I am not claiming that this is always the case, but think of other examples, like, for instance, "I did X, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"). And I think you know this, since you said it was clear what sentence he was referring to.

In the example, "There are seven words in this sentence", I am inclined to believe that there is a proposition being made. First, as noted, yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that "this sentence" refers to the sentence in which the phrase is in. And it seems to me that it is either true or false that a sentence has seven words; there is meaning here.

However, the problem with "This sentence is false", is, I think, that we do not attribute the properties true or false to sentences. We attribute the properties true or false to propositions. So, I do not think a proposition is being made, and I'm not sure the sentence is meaningful.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;166522 wrote:

However, the problem with "This sentence is false", is, I think, that we do not attribute the properties true or false to sentences. We attribute the properties true or false to propositions. So, it seems to me meaningless, and therefore I do not think there is a proposition being made.

Yes indeed. Even if "there are seven words in this sentence" does make sense, and is true to boot (about which I am not at all sure) it does not follow that the sentence, "this sentence is false" makes sense (has a truth value). Why should it? (I mentioned this point once or twice before). Having a particular number of words is a predicate of sentences, but truth-values are meta-predicates of sentences: predicates sentences have in virtue of their object predicates. The analogy between the first and second need justification.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166526 wrote:

Yes indeed. Even if "there are seven words in this sentence" does make sense, and is true to boot (about which I am not at all sure) it does not follow that the sentence, "this sentence is false" makes sense (has a truth value). Why should it? (I mentioned this point once or twice before). Having a particular number of words is a predicate of sentences, but truth-values are meta-predicates of sentences: predicates sentences have in virtue of their object predicates. The analogy between the first and second need justification.

Yes, the only way I see it being meaningful, is if it refers to a proposition contained in another sentence.

For instance,

If a person pointed to the sentence "The chemical composition of water is H2O" and said, "This sentence is true". Of course, we would translate "this sentence" into "the proposition being made in that sentence".

Philosophy Forum

This sentence is false.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know