Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- From: Newberry <newberryxy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 7, 2:48 pm, herbzet <herb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
herbzet wrote:
I don't see how he can at once assert that they necessitate each other,
and that they necessitate a contradiction for any truth-assignment to Y..
Not that that is a priori impossible:
Let A be a contradiction and B be a contradiction.
The A <-> B is true but A & B is false.
--
hz
He of course believes that if Y does not have a truth value then it is
not true. But then it is exactly what it says. Therefore it is true.
But I think he failed to substantiate it with the asumption that Y and
(T(~Y) v . ~T(Y) & ~T(~Y)) necessiate each other. A necessitates B
means that whenever A s true then B is true. For non-bivalent logics
necessitation is NOT equivalent to implication. I just wonder what I
have missed.
.
- References:
- Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- From: Newberry
- Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- From: herbzet
- Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- Next by Date: Re: how to prove E!x(Fx & Gx) -> Ax(Fx-> Gx)
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- Next by thread: Re: Is there an error in Van Fraassen's paper?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|