Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:15:47 +0100
george wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:40 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:Objects don't have properties of truth and falsehood.
They do IN LOGIC, DUMBASS.
No they don't. Objects don't have properties of truth and falsehood. Truth and falsehood are functions not of objects but on the frameworks within which objects are presented.
The whole enterprise IS ABOUT truth and falsehood.
No it isn't. "P" states P. Period.
Of course, in first-order logic, we do generally distinguish between
"first-class" objects AND SENTENCES, and it is the latter that
must have truth or falsehood, while the former usually don't.
No. Neither sentences nor objects in logic have properties of truth and falsehood. Sentences and objects are either presented or not. Their truth and falsity is a function of the framework within which they are presented.
But in the extended sense in which YOU are using "object"
(you are calling P an object, whereas people WITH a brain would
call P a proposition -- that' s *why* "P" is chosen as a name for it),
propositions and/or boolean variables MUST have truth-values.
No. Whether P is a proposition or an object is immaterial. That's my whole point - in a non-anthropomorphic, true, logic, P is P. Period. Forget the airy fairy 'oh its a sentence', 'oh its an object', 'oh but what would my grandmother think' sweat the small stuff.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- An argument against modus ponens
- Prev by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Previous by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|