Theres two kinds of truth: Logical truth and Empirical truth. The following sentense is an empirical truth: The first sentence in this thread is "Theres two kinds of truth: Logical truth and Empirical truth." To find out if the sentence above is true, we need to check reality too see if it is as the sentence says it is. To see if a sentence is logically true we only need to see how the sentence itself is constructed, we need not look in other places of reality: Example: "If it rains then it rains." We think we understand the difference... dont we? Lets look at the following sentence: 1. Sentence 1 is not true. It is an infamous piece of reality we use when we determine if the following sentence is true: 2. Sentence 1 = "Sentense 1 is not true. Can we agree that sentence 2 IS empirically true? Good! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If we do understand the difference between empirical and logical truth then sentence 2 is NOT logically true...Right? This is because logical truths are true no matter how reality is constructed. And if sentence 1 had been another sentence not meaning the same, then sentence 2 would have been false. All that said, would you expect sentence 2 to be logically not true? You wouldnt huh? But it IS, and its easy to prove! Suppose x = "x is not true." Then x is true if, and only if, "x is not true" is true! Terefore it is not true that x = "x is not true." And if x = sentence 1, then sentence 1 is not logically identical to "Sentence 1 is not true." Sentence 2 is empirically true and logically not true! It looks like a contradiction ... but as I said: Theres two kinds of truth.
There's your truth, my truth and the bosses truth, then there's the governments , politicans and scientists truths also.
This "relativity theory" of truth is widespread but none the less wrong. You are the only one able to prove yourself wrong so I wont bother. Perhaps one of these days you will stumble on the truth. Reading Alfred Tarski or Aristoteles might help you.
I ask a religious person for truth and they give me what they believe is the truth to them. I ask a scientist the same questions and they have another truth for me to understand. As I was eluding to there are many variations of truth to many people that truth is very difficult to discern today. I understand what you are driving at but allow me to venture into the realm of my own line of reason for whatever it may be worth. To me it is the way I try to get by in life by trying to reason out what the truth is to me, not to those religious, scientists and others that have their own truths by which they adhere themselves to. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Reasonable, but you should use ""truth"" instead of "truth". Except with the underlined sentence Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When it comes to anybody understanding what Im driving at, Im very pessimistic! Youre kidding, right?
It seems to me that Sentence 2 can not be both an empirical statement and a logical statement. It can not have both a logical truth value and an empirical truth value. That you have found both indicates that you are using different interpretations of Sentence 2 in different parts of your argument. There are in fact several distinct interpretations of Sentence 2: 2. Sentence 1 is the sequence of words "Sentence 1 is not true."This statement is empirically true, and has no logical truth value. 2. Sentence 1 has the same logical truth value as "Sentence 1 is not true."At first glance this interpretation seems logically false. At second glance it seems incoherent, since "Sentence 1 is not true" is empirical with no logical truth value. But if (as in the current case) Sentence also has no logical truth value, then we can at least say that the interpretation is not empirically false. It may be empirically true, depending on whether it is meaningful to compare the logical truth of two sentences with no logical truth value. 2. Sentence 1 has the same empirical truth value as "Sentence 1 is not true."This sentence seems to be is logically false, but on further consideration we see that there are even more distinct interpretations: 2. Sentence 1 has the same empirical truth value as "Sentence 1 is empirically false."This seems at first glance to be logically not true, but it in fact depends on whether Sentence 1 is an empirical statement, therefore it is itself an empirical statement and has no logical truth value. Since Sentence 1 is a logical statement with no empirical truth value, this interpretation of Sentence 2 is not empirically false. It may be empirically true, depending on whether it is meaningful to compare the empirical truth of two sentences with no empirical truth value. 2. Sentence 1 has the same empirical truth value as "Sentence 1 is not empirically true."This interpretation is empirically false. Sentence 1 has no empirical truth value. The sentence "Sentence 1 is not empirically true" is empirically true. (Do you see what I think I see? I'll come back to this in a separate post.) 2. Sentence 1 has the same empirical truth value as "Sentence 1 is logically false."This interpretation seems incoherent at first, since it implies that Sentence 1 is both a logical statement and an empirical statement. But if (as in the current case) Sentence also has no logical truth value, then we can at least say that the interpretation is not empirically false. It may be empirically true, depending on whether it is meaningful to compare the logical truth of two sentences with no logical truth value. 2. Sentence 1 has the same empirical truth value as "Sentence 1 is not logically true."This interpretation is empirically false. Sentence 1 has no empirical truth value. "Sentence 1 is not logically true" is empirically true.
Followup: This sentence is not empirically true I think that sentence is very interesting. It is a logical statement - it doesn't rely on any external facts - so it has no empirical truth value. It is not empirically false. It is not empirically true. Which is what it says. Therefore it is logically true. Agree? Disagree?
OP (sigurdV) logic syntax errors: ERROR# 01--Line #03: ...The first sentence in this thread is "Theres two kinds of truth: Logical truth and Empirical truth."... Sentence correction: The actual first sentence in this thread is the title sentence, "The truth about truth." (note period at end of title) ERROR# 02--Line #09: ...1. Sentence 1 is not true... Line(s)/sentence structure correction: ...Lets look at the following sentence: 1. <statement> 2. Sentence 1 is not true... Further correction--Line #11: 3. Sentence 2 = "Sentense 1 is not true...
Hi All! At first glance you surprise me!! It seems you argue my argument... This might be FUN! Now i will read carefully what has been said... But I will first give you something to ponder while waiting. The class of self referential statements. Let x be any statement, then theres a class of sentences such that x = Px for some predicate P. My question is: Must we really exclude this whole class of sentences from evaluation in order to escape paradoxes, or are the troublesome elements already excluded from this set by logic? Suppose: x = Px Then: Px if and only if PPx And finally:(x = Px) implies that ( Px = PPx) And that excludes any x making the right side of the implication not true. Right?
Hi keith1 ! I like your economical writing style...But I think you should add some more colour by adding a few comments Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Title of a thread is usually not considered the first element of the thread! I think this is a conventional matter... Its difficult to be complete in the beginning of a communication. And by "complete statement" i mean a statement that has one, and only one interpretation. Lack of completeness is one possible source of paradox (or confusion): 1 Write on your wastebasket: Only for truths! 2 Write on a paper: This paper is not in the wastebasket. What, then ,should be done with the paper? Im sorry to have to admit I dont understand the rest: "ERROR# 02--Line #09: ...1. Sentence 1 is not true... Line(s)/sentence structure correction: ...Lets look at the following sentence: 1. <statement> 2. Sentence 1 is not true... Further correction--Line #11: 3. Sentence 2 = "Sentense 1 is not true..." It is about the core of the argument... I dont dare interpretating it. Please clarify!
There is only one irrefutable "truth" ! -"Cogito ergo sum" - Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe, but we can not prove. "If there is one then there are many"- prove it. There is no logical truth without empirical truth.
Look at religion and whatever religion you examine most have logical truths put into them but can't find empirical truth to back up any of their claims. If there were no logical truths involved with religion then few people would believe in them but religions can't back up their claims with empirical evidence but people tend to overlook that because they want to believe in what others around them do.
On Interpretation We need to be precise and use a common nomenclature! So there are some definitions that should be introduced. 1 A "Liar Sentence" , abbreviated "LS" , is any sentence somehow claiming itself not to be true. It has the logical form: x is not true 2 A "Liar Identity" , abbreviated "LI" , is any sentence telling us what the subject a certain LS has. It has the logical form: x="x is not true" There are many instances of this... Heres my own: 1 Sentence 1 is not true (Liar Sentence) 2 Sentence 1 = "Sentence 1 is not true" (Liar Identity) The concept of liar identity is probably new to the litterature on paradoxes, and my opinion is that to much attention has been on the LS ...It is not fully realized how the LS and the LI works together to produce the paradox. A good question now is to ask if all paradoxes has the same logical form! (There are of course many good questions to ask here, so I advice us to proceed with no unduly haste.)
Yes. The existence of a god for theists is a "self-evidence", even if they not acknowledged. To strengthen this self-evidence, they try all kinds of demonstrations. It would be much easier for them to admit that the existence of God, for them is self-evidence.
Lets not be hasty, by trying to do everything at once! Begin by treating "If there is one then there are many" empirically... Select an object and see if there are others of the same kind! I suppose you will find that objects tend to form groups of the same kind! So: Is there an object unlike all other objects??
You are a hunter! Theres basically two kinds of sentences: 1 Sentences that do not say something relevant about themselves. 2 Sentences that do say something relevant about themselves. Within the second group we find a subgroup: 3 Proper self referential sentences that only speak about themselves. Are they empirical or logical? Must we brush up our understanding of the important difference?
Do you claim that empirical truths can not be proven? What kind of thing can prove such a claim? Isnt it self evident that some empirical truths (like this one) can be proven? I dont yet claim much... Basically I claim that the difference between Logical and Empirical truths is poorly understood,causes confusion and contributes to paradoxes. And I think I am not all alone in that view!
