I am going to list, on this thread, elements of deductive logic, all of which are entirely uncontroversial, until I find one that someone will argue with.
The statements, or propositions, in a deductive argument are either true or false.
I just can’t wait.
Me neither. I’ll argue with every single one, just for the hell of it. 
Okay, gib.
The statements, or propositions in a deductive argument are either true or false.
In due time, I’ll give you my reasons against the Law of Identity and Noncontradiction if you like… 
Okay, realun. I was hoping to get a direct response to my OP, but a conversation is a conversation. Please give them one at a time, though. I’m not very smart.
I can’t yet–that’s why I said “in due time”. 
Seriously though, I’m paranoid. I don’t all you smart bastards to steal my ideas that I want to write about…
For now, let’s just say there’s “flaws” with the system.
Let me guess what you’re thinking… ( 
)?
Ah, I see. Your stuff is just too darned valuable to waste here. I understand completely.
Just remember us little people when you get famous.
Yes yes, of course. Hehe. 
I think that the statements or propositions in a deductive argument are always true and always false according to the seperate doxastic viewpoints of any two individuals.
Don’t hurt me Faust. I’m just a)testing the waters, and b)trying to give you what you want.
Wow! Doxastic! That’s a “smart” word. What does it mean, Smears?
faust,
So you say the statements, or propositions, in a deductive argument are either true or false.
How 'bout this one: The king of France is bald.
too narrow…
i would contend that the elemtnts in a deductive argument aren’t always true… the truth of the propositions are dependant on the state of the world…
gib - That’s actually an interesting one. It could be interpreted as false, but also as gibberish, which is neither true nor false, but also isn’t a proposition.
Russell, who I admire, would call this sentence nonsense, and therefore not capable of making any claim at all. And I would be happy enough to go along with him. But I can also read it as false.
It is either not a proposition at all, then, or it is false. I’m not sure what difference it makes.
Which do you think it is?
Smears - as long as the truth or falsity is divvied up among individuals, then you haven’t said anything that contradicts my statement.
oh i forgot,
now do i get a cookie?
or is this just simple nihilism…
Of course they aren’t always true. My statement is that they are either true or false. It’s not multiple choice, Won.
ohh yes… gotcha… damn… i cannot really argue with that besides this question…
“will you answer no to this question?”
Faust, I suggest you read Quine’s two dogmas of Empiricism. I haven’t studied really studied it, just read it for a class, but he attempts to get rid of the analytic v. synthetic distinction by claiming that sentences that are supposedly true by virtue of there meaning alone are reviseable. For example “all unmarried men are bachelors” is not necessary truth because it assumes synonomy, but synonomy is context dependent and never rigorous. I couldn’t explain it to you if I tried, but I get the sense that it is important, and it has direct implications for logic.
Nihilistic - Interesting article. Quine is after bigger fish than I am discussing here, but there is some connection between his paper and this thread in that there is a difference between a sentence and the proposition that it contains, and it can be very difficult to ascertain that proposition. I disagree with some of his points, but Russell, for instance, has “solved” many a paradox by teasing out the proposition contained in a sentence as nicely as possible - or as nicely as necessary, and Quine is on board with that.
Synonyms aren’t always interchangeable - that’s not news. Quine reminds us that what we take for analytical truth may not be.
Is “All men are mortal” synthetic or analytical? I say it can be read either way. I’m not sure what Quine would say. What do you think?
Well, I know we differ on the concept of “meaning” so what I think may not make sense to you.
I say it is true in a fantasy world in which the king of France is bald.
I say it is false in a fantasy world in which the kind of France is not bald.
I say it is nonsense in this world.
In other words, the question of whether it is meaningful or not depends on which world you intend for it to describe.