Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:36:31 +0100
george wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:No.
That was a sentence. Does it have a truth-value?
Presumably, YOU STATED that sentence because YOU THOUGHT
its truth-value was "true". So you look pretty stupid claiming that
sentences
don't have truth-values, since you yourself are speaking as though
they do.
"It's raining" does not have a truth-value.
That was a sentence. Does it have a truth-value?
It's ridiculous to suggest that it does.
That was a sentence. Are you suggesting that the sentence that YOU
JUST WROTE
did NOT have a truth-value??
Why should a sentence have a truth value? No sentences have truth values except in natural language conditions.
And you also can't say 'that was a sentence' - because a sentence is a particular sentence. There is no general form of a sentence from which we can postulate 'that is a sentence'.
Bitch, please -- THAT suggestion would
be coming
from US, not yourself. YOU STATED it BECAUSE YOU thought that it DID
have a
truth-value, AND that the truth-value that it in fact had was TRUE.
No, it didn't have a truth value. Truth and falsehood were inimicable to it.
.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
|