I’m taking Philosophy this semester and our Professor is known to be very very hard. He tells us beforehand that only a few of us will ever get his “Unholy Question of the Week” right. We get a different question every week. Anyways, the people here obviously know more about Philosophy than I do, so I was hoping you guys could help me out with this week’s question.
The Question: Write a grammatically correct sentence which could be shown to be true based on evidence [but not false]
and which is currently not either true or false.
I didn’t know who Karl Popper is, and we didn’t have any alotted reading for this question. I am taking this Philosophy class for a requirement, and I am very interested in it so far. However, it is my first Philosophy class ever, so cut me a break.
And can you please elaborate on that? Why is it that a sentence that cannot be shown to be false with evidence, cannot be shown to be true with evidence?
Take this, for example. “A circle is round.” Even though this is true in its current state, so it cannot be used for the purpose of this question, but still, it can be shown to be true with evidence, yet cannot be shown to be false. Because it is impossible for it to be false.
How about something like “This sentence is currently not either true or false.”; or “The sentence: ‘This sentence are ungrammatical.’, will be proven to be an ungrammatical sentence.”, something along those lines; or even more simply, “This sentence will be proven to be grammatical.”; or “A reader is comprehending this sentence.”.
“I’ve designed a device which will hopefully toast bread using cosmic rays.”
*So - it’s a grammatically correct sentence for a start. (hopes desperately - being an English teacher)
*The object itself doesn’t exist except on a piece of paper. But the act of design can be proven ie: the drawing exists - it is a design - it looks like it could do the job.
*No-one can prove the statement to be false, because again, the object doesn’t physically exist yet to be tested.
*And finally - at the moment, the object such as it is, lies in the realm of ideas, so currently, until it’s built, it lies in the limbo of true/not true.
I’d wait a bit until someone else comes along and either says:
“Tab - that’s right - you’re a genius…” (unlikely)
or
“Tab - that’s bollocks.” (fairly high probability)
You will present your work in the form of a first-person proposition to the professor of your class:
“Your class is bullshit and you are over-paid.”
The statement is true because the class resembles the qualities of bullshit: it stinks in there, and the organic matter can be used to enhance the fertility of the soil, once the building is demolished. Also, because monetary value is translatable to material work force, your professor, who burns twenty-six calories moving a pen, owns more currency than the indigenous workers of Turkey, and therefore has more money than he should have based on the definition of monetary value. Each of these are rendered empirically.
But, and here’s the kicker, the statement is neither true or false because of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, and none of the aforementioned states have any reality at all…they are in a constant flux. This is rendered rationally through synaptical cancellation, which is to say, the ‘form’ of each empirical state has no mass and is instead a formulation of the Platonic ‘idea,’ existing through the collapse of the wave-function.
You should get an A+…or a smack in the face. I prefer the latter.
There’s nothing better than beating up a philosopher.
ii) Don’t just ask questions. Bring something to the discussion.
Asking “WOAH…LIKE…COULD WE BE LIKE…IN THE MATRIX???” does not make you a philosopher. Honestly. Asking questions is great, as long as you have studied to some extent the topic that you are talking about. Have the decency to go and read some philosophy before asking questions that any old schmoe could ask. There’s no need to try and look cleverer than you actually are, this isn’t a contest. We’re here to educate and be educated.
iii) We are not here to do your homework
If you haven’t done your essay due in tomorrow, you’ve come to the wrong place. Organise your time better, read some books, copy someone elses essay. Whatever you do, just don’t come here.
If one finds empirical evidence of an alien named Jacob living on Jupiter, then one has proved this grammatically correct sentence to be true. However, at the moment, this sentence is niether true or false, since no one has yet met Jacob the alien on Jupiter.
It cannot be proven false, because no one can know that there is not an alien by the name of Jacob living on Jupiter.
Dunamis,
This is either true or false, now isn’t it?
Oh! Right! Nevermind. . . It can’t be proven. Got ya.
This seems to be a question about either Popper, or about logic (which is not my area…) If you simply fudge words a little you can come up with something like these, which sound perfectly reasonable;
(1)“Based on the rise, or failure to rise, of the sun tomorrow, it will be evidenced that something is taking place.”
(a) Something will always take place, because of the generality of the term ‘something’, and the inclusive of the parameters of the proposition.
OR
(2) “Tomorrow I will say ‘here’, and that is where I will be.”
(a) ‘Here’ is an indexical term which can never be falsely applied to oneself, even if one is mistaken about where one is.
- being an English teacher)