tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post6207540322819594553..comments2023-11-25T01:52:56.999-08:00Comments on Philosophical Pontifications: A Limitation on DialetheismAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06892913480992228908noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-4933912795409355442018-06-19T07:23:10.677-07:002018-06-19T07:23:10.677-07:00The next time I read a weblog, I hope that it does...The next time I read a weblog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as a lot as this one. I mean, I do know it was my choice to learn, but I really thought youd have something interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you can repair in case you werent too busy in search of attention. <a href="https://online-casinos.us.org" rel="nofollow">bovada casino</a>nikkisa889https://www.blogger.com/profile/06809329148156873851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-25854714127518224892016-05-26T19:51:33.804-07:002016-05-26T19:51:33.804-07:00Hi, just passing by to see something very interest...<br />Hi, just passing by to see something very interesting and gladly I've found it here. Thank you for your wonderful article it really helped me a lot. You can also visit my site if you have time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.triciajoy.com" rel="nofollow">triciajoy.com</a><br /><br />www.triciajoy.com<br />andrea chiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04035532519352427999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-61216157817935745372014-12-09T19:54:08.176-08:002014-12-09T19:54:08.176-08:00I truly enjoy reading your blog. It impressed me ...I truly enjoy reading your blog. It impressed me a lot. Very unique and interesting. You are really a good blogger. Keep it up. Thank you and more power.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.imarksweb.org" rel="nofollow">Jim</a><br />www.imarksweb.org<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03983279751843228358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-57412814516285589232014-04-28T16:04:56.530-07:002014-04-28T16:04:56.530-07:00Thanks, everyone!!
I'm too busy to comment in...Thanks, everyone!!<br /><br />I'm too busy to comment in detail right now, but I'll follow up ASAP!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892913480992228908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-65869263285571092302014-03-19T18:50:41.981-07:002014-03-19T18:50:41.981-07:00i like your website its very different. it has a l...i like your website its very different. it has a lot of interesting things to read about.<br /><br />www.joeydavila.nettommyhttp://www.joeydavila.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-37092973213398926172008-02-20T09:14:00.000-08:002008-02-20T09:14:00.000-08:00Hi anonymous,That is a good point, and while one ...Hi anonymous,<BR/><BR/>That is a good point, and while one might take that view, I'm not sure whether it is viable or not. (If you're interested, you might want to check out my latest post "Does every proposition have a negation?".) In any case, if you think statements like "0=1" have no truth value, you can substitute any (contingent) falsehood you like and the argument will still go through. So let's run the argument with "Every human is shorter than six feet" in place of "0=1":<BR/><BR/>"(2) This statement has the same truth value as “Every human is shorter than six feet”.<BR/><BR/>"Assume (2) is false. If so, it must have a different truth value than “Every human is shorter than six feet”, for what (2) says is that they have the same value. Since “Every human is shorter than six feet” is false, (2), if it has a different value, must be true. But if (2) is true, it has the same truth value as “Every human is shorter than six feet”, for that they have the same truth value is precisely what (2) says. Now if (2) is true, and it has the same truth value as “Every human is shorter than six feet”, then “Every human is shorter than six feet” must also be true, and hence we can conclude that every human is shorter than six feet!"<BR/><BR/>Since there are some people who are six feet or taller, the conclusion of the above argument cannot be correct. Nevertheless, "Every human is shorter than six feet" has a truth value: It's (contingently) false. The problem with the argument is that you can take *any* false proposition you please and use the argument to show that it's true.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892913480992228908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-30529526334684521082008-02-19T22:12:00.000-08:002008-02-19T22:12:00.000-08:00Hi, I just happened across your post whilst googli...Hi, I just happened across your post whilst googling :-) and I have a question:<BR/><BR/>Regarding (2), couldn't one simply say that this statement has no truth value? Perhaps that's just another way of saying (2) isn't really a proposition, but to my mind, we could easily read the statement as follows:<BR/><BR/>0=1 has no truth value (unless we're speaking some tech language?).<BR/><BR/>So, the statement really says, "This statement has the same truth value as no truth value." Which seems to solve the problem... unless I'm missing something. Just wondering about that. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>GeoffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-7628378843747481912007-10-02T23:17:00.000-07:002007-10-02T23:17:00.000-07:00Aha, that's interesting, I never actually knew wha...Aha, that's interesting, I never actually knew what paraconsistent logic was :-)<BR/><BR/>Thanks a lot for the reading matter, will definitely take a look.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-25054454613443470222007-10-02T00:18:00.000-07:002007-10-02T00:18:00.000-07:00Hi Rich,Thanks for your comment. As far as formal ...Hi Rich,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment. As far as formal logic is concerned, I've been trying to teach myself, and honestly I'm not very far along yet. However, from what I understand there are different ways of "going dialetheic": The most famous, Graham Priest's logic LP (for "Logic of Paradox"), does treat 'true-and false' as a third value. Others give up the truth-functionality of negation, so that the truth-table for negation looks just like that for an arbitrary p and q: both true, both false, p true and not-p false, p false and not-p true. <BR/><BR/>As for a true-and-false proposition implying a false one, I think that too depends on the system, specifically on whether true-and-false is designated or not. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I think this SEP article on paraconsistent logics explains things far better than I could:<BR/><BR/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/<BR/><BR/>(Don't worry, it's very short.)<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps answer your questions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892913480992228908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21863552.post-9667331340760504492007-10-01T23:49:00.000-07:002007-10-01T23:49:00.000-07:00Interesting. So how does deduction work in a diale...Interesting. So how does deduction work in a dialethic system? Is true-and-false treated as a third value in a Kleene-like logic?<BR/><BR/>Even simpler than that, how do the connectives work? For instance, let L be the Liar proposition, and let F be a false proposition. If L->F true, false or both?<BR/><BR/>(Apologies for being too lazy to read the papers you referenced to get my answers... feel free to send me scurrying off to the library)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com