Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet <herbzet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:22:39 -0500
LauLuna wrote:
On Feb 13, 3:14 am, herbzet <herb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The major advantage of Tarski's scheme is that it is concrete
and rigorous. So we can be properly mathematical and _prove_
things about truth, or at least, about truth-as-defined-by-Tarski.
It's a pretty good scheme.
--
hz
But surely you agree that Tarski's scheme assumes that any expression
with sentential form has a truth value, and that this assumption is
untenable.
Consider sentence-token (1):
(1) '(1) expresses no true proposition'
Applying Tarski's scheme we get:
(T-1) "'(1) expresses no true proposition' is true iff (1) expresses
no true proposition"
But we can show using ordinary logic that sentence-token (1) expresses
no true proposition. (T-1) allows to deduce from this fact that (1) is
true. This is a contradiction.
But the problem is not with the concept of truth underlying Tarski's
scheme (which is quite straightforward) but in the assumption that
every token of every expression with sentential form expresses a
proposition and has a truth value.
Regards
I actually tend to agree with what you've been saying in this
thread, but I don't like to think about the Liar too much
because it just makes me want to hide under the covers and
weep quietly.
So I'm just going to back out of this one.
Thanks.
--
hz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: LauLuna
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- References:
- Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: LauLuna
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: LauLuna
- Is Truth Mysterious?
- Prev by Date: Re: Can ZFC prove Addition is Associative?
- Next by Date: Re: Can ZFC prove Addition is Associative?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|