The subject line of this thread is true.
Parlor games!
Carnival rides!
Well i was hoping someone would spawn off a conversation about logical fallacies or something. i was too lazy to do that, so i just felt like starting it.
The first post is a lie that either admits it’s a lie honestly or is honest and denies it is by lying. So we may have a liar who speaks the truth or someone honest who is lying; this confuses us and we don’t know whether to believe the subject or what the subject is doing because they are hypocritical to each other.
“you’re a liar”
“yes, I’m a liar”
“but if you’re a liar, you’re lying”
“but if I was lying I’d have to be honest”
“but if you were honest you wouldn’t be lying!”
Not exactly. Taken together, the sentences make no verifiable claim. Therefore, no truth value can be assigend to them. They are sentences but not statements. Sentences that declare truth or falsity alone are not statements. They have to declare the truth about something. Separately, these do - but no truth table can be assigend to them in tandem.
“This is true” makes no claim - it just looks like it does.
I’m not sure why that’s a fallacy. It’s really just nonsense.
Fallacies occur when we think meaningful statements are being made, but have mistaken the sentences enough not to notice that no meaning exists in them. A sentecne can be grammatically correct, and each word can have meaning, and still not be a meanigful sentence.
Go figure.
This is new to me.
It makes me think of something like: Subject a is a cretin. Subject a says all cretins are liars. Subject a is a liar. It’s like “Socrates is a man…” only also feeling untrustworthy of the validity of the man making the statement because he is one. We’re uncertain whether to believe the cretin is a liar and if the statement being made by the cretin is true or false.
But I do see truth value in them together. The subject line is declaring that the first post is false and the first post is declaring that the subject line is true. What would you have to add to them to make meaningful? The meaning here is that one declares the falsity of the first post and the other declares the truth of the subject line being true (ironically about it itself being false).
When I say “My dog puked in my car” I am making an assertion - a statement. When I say of this statement “it is a true statement” I have said nothing additional - I have said nothing at all. This assumes that I mean it, of course, but if I don’t, then I am lying and the statement will not be, can not be’ verified (unless my dog really did puke and I didin’t know it). Just saying “this is true” is saying nothing at all, even though it sounds like it is.
All those sentences do is refer to the (potential) truth of the other. Nothing is really being asserted. Truth “takes an object”. Something is true or it is not. Is verifiable, that is, or it is not. “The truth about truth” is a meaningless thing to say. As is “the blueness of blue”. It’s blue or it’s not, and if we don’t know, and can’t find out, then no truth value can be assignd. No truth value can be assigned to “there is a unicorn in my ear” - even though that sentence makes grammatical “sense”.
One of those statements has to be verifiable for a truth value to be assigend to the other. That’s all that truth is, in logic. It’s not metpahysical certitude - it’s just correspondence to some observable condition. In logic, the truth value of any statement must be accepted, for whatever reason, previous to the actual logical operation. Logic is not about truth - it’s about the operations. “Contradiction” is a technical term, which is defined by truth tables. But those tables determine only the relations between statements, and not the truth of the simple statements themsleves. There is, therefore, no contradiction here. Grammatically, it looks like there is a contradiction, but contradiction is actually impossible in the given example.
In a non-logical, untechnical sense, you can make of these sentences anything you wish to. It’s only a parlor game, after all.
It would sound completely bogus if I said that rule of logic is false, logically.
It would sound brief.
What rule of logic?