Calling out Dr. Scribbles

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom



if the second sentence is true, then how can the first sentence be false?

Formulate each as a proposition in symbolic logic and you'll see that a proof that each proposition is false is fairly simple.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
wikipedia again:

This statement is false. (A)

If we suppose that the statement is true, everything asserted in it must be true. However, because the statement asserts that it is itself false, it must be false. So the hypothesis that it is true leads to the contradiction that it is true and false. Yet we cannot conclude that the sentence is fa ...[text shortened]... has to abide by the principle of bivalence, a concept related to the law of the excluded middle.

The confusion of this excerpt lies in attributing truth values to linguistic statements rather than to propositions. The subject of this thread is the truth value of propositions, but so far the only counterexamples to my claim have fallaciously relied on attributing truth values to linguistic statements.

It should be perfectly clear without resorting to contrived self-referential statements that it is not the case that all linguistic statements have exactly one truth value, which was never my claim. Counterexamples are trivially numerous: we have already seen an instance of one class of them based on terms without referents. There are many others.

That strings of words in natural language may not make meaningful assertions has no bearing on whether all propositions have a truth value, any more than imperfect hand-drawn circles have any bearing on whether all circles have a radius.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are now confusing truth with knowledge. You are also confusing linguistic nonsense that has no propositional content with a proposition that has no truth value.

In order to comment on (1) and (2), I'd have to know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in order to affirm that they are propositions at all, for if it doesn't, they each have a ...[text shortened]... e linguistic nonsense with no propositional content for a proposition with no truth value.

Gentle Doctor,

I don't know how you can assert with assurance that I am confusing (a) truth with knowledge, and (b) linguistic nonsense devoid of propositional content with propositions devoid of truth value.

After all, I just invited you to remark on two propositions. (I agree their propositional status is under debate; I knew it would be.) But you seem to be using my modest invitation as a basis for inferring all sorts of illegitimate conclusions about my mental ability, and about where I am headed with this argument.

You of all people should know that jumping to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence isn't the mark of rationality.

Furthermore, just to give you the heads up, I haven't reached the nub of my argumentation with this post. It's a preamble. So take it easy with the uncharitable abductions.

Now, let's clarify two things before proceeding:

First, the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't REALLY exist; it's an artful and humorous invention. Google it to see.

Second, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as an artful and humorous invention, has a Noodly Appendage. In fact, it reputedly uses this appendage to change the results that scientists get every time they take a measurement. This conveniently put the Flying Spaghetti Monster beyond empirical reach, and makes believing in it a matter of pure faith.

Now, I would say that there is a clear sense in which the term "Flying Spaghetti Monster" lacks a referent. After all, he doesn't exist.

However, I would also say that there is also a clear sense in which it has a referent too.

This is a paradox, but not a contradiction: the two senses in which it has a referent are not the same. I can elaborate on that later.

For now, however, I think it's pretty clear what I am referring to when I talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It will also be pretty clear when you refer to it in your next post.

However, if the term "Flying Spaghetti Monster" did not have a referent, then how could we even be discussing it?

Moreover, although the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't REALLY exist, it is nonetheless true, in a sufficiently clear sense, that he has a Noodly Appendage, and nonetheless false, in a sufficiently clear sense, that he lacks a Noodly Appendage.

For example, suppose I asked someone, "Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have a Noodly Appendage?" (Imagine I was testing to see how much they knew about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to estimate the quality of their memory.)

If someone replied, "Yes! The Flying Spaghetti Monster does have a Noodly Appendage!" then they would be making a true statement.

However, if someone replied "No! The Flying Spaghetti Monster does NOT have a Noodly Appendage!" then they would be making a false statement.

Do you really expect us to believe that the answers people might give would be nothing but "linguistic nonsense that has no propositional content", and which would therefore be neither true nor false?

If you deny that the answers that might be given would be true or false, would you at least concede that they might be either correct or incorrect?

And if you concede that, then answer the following question: in virtue of what would those be answers be correct or incorrect?

My answer is: their truth or falsity. What would yours be?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Gentle Doctor,

I don't know how you can assert with assurance that I am confusing (a) truth with knowledge, and (b) linguistic nonsense devoid of propositional content with propositions devoid of truth value.

After all, I just invited you to remark on two propositions. (I agree their propositional status is under debate; I knew it would be.) But y r incorrect?

My answer is: their truth or falsity. What would yours be?

The essence of your presentation is that some linguistic statements have terms with ambiguous referents, or have ambiguous propositional content. I don't dispute this, but it has no bearing whatsoever on my claim that all propositions have exactly one truth value.

Let us consider a much simpler example of the same form.
Consider statement S: "My shoe is untied."

S has no truth value, because its propositional content is ambiguous, due to its ambiguous referent. There are thus several plausible propositions that this statement may be intended to express, such as
P1: My left shoe is untied.
P2: My right shoe is untied.
P3: I have at least one shoe that is untied.
P4: The shoe in my closet is untied.
and so on.

Suppose it is the case that my left shoe is tied, and my right shoe is untied, and I have no other shoes. Now, I ask somebody, "Is my shoe untied?" It is meaningless to deem any response they give as correct or incorrect, unless they also make explicit which bit of propositional content they extracted from my question. Their response may be correct with respect to P1 but incorrect with respect to P2, and unless he tells me to which he was responding, I can't say whether his response was correct. You could conventionally say that his answer is both correct and incorrect, or both true and false, since there exist according propositions expressed by the original question, but you still have not indentified any single proposition that is both true and false.

In your example, when you ask the person whether the monster has a noodly appendage, if it is clear that the referent of the term is the theoretical description of the fictional monster, then there is no issue, as you point out. Similarly, if it is clear from some discussion that the referent of the term is the actual monster, then either we have no proposition or a false one. In no case, however, do we have a proposition that is both true and false. That the statement represents an ambiguity of propositions that happen to have opposite truth values does not mean that its propositional content is both true and false.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole

My answer is: their truth or falsity. What would yours be?

Our knowledge of the truth or falsity of their propositional content. It should be perfectly clear by now that attributing truth or falsity to linguistic statements only causes confusion.

That is, the answer Yes is correct not with respect to the question, "Does the FSM have a noodly appendage," but with respect to the proposition, "The FSM that I have just described has a noodly appendage." (Notice how the restrictive clause eliminates the ambiguity and the problem with the definite article.)

The answer No is correct not with repsect to the question, "Does the FSM have a noodly appendage," but with respect to the proposition, "There exists a unique FSM in the real universe that has a noodly appendage."

That the same string of words can represent different well-defined and unambigious propositions with different truth values in no way suggests that some propositions have mutliple truth values.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are confusing truth with proof and decidability. I know more mathematics than you could ever hope to grasp, although I'm forever at the drawing board.

Goedel never claims that G is a proposition with no truth value. The essense of his claim is that both it and its negation have no proof, which is something very different.

i doubt you do know more as i'm a maths teacher; i cant even be bothered to carry on having a chat with a ten year old with a ridiculous belief as "nothing exist outside of true of false"

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So take it easy with the uncharitable abductions.

Have you ever heard the story of the alligator and the scorpion?

Once upon a time, in a land far away, there was a wicked forest fire which destroyed everything in its path. Trapped between the blaze and safety on the other side of the river was a scorpion who couldn’t swim. Desperate to save his life, the scorpion befriended an alligator hoping to persuade him to carry him across the river to the other side and safety.

The alligator, knowing a thing or two about scorpions was highly skeptical about his new friend's motives and called him on it. “Why should I give you a lift across the river – you’ll sting me and I’ll die.”

With all the sincerity the scorpion could muster, he put forth his case. “Why would I sting you, friend? If you carry me across the river, you would save my life. I would be indebted to you forever.”

So with that, the alligator said “fine” and carried his new buddy across the river. As the two amigos got across to the other side, the scorpion stung the alligator.

As the double-crossed alligator was slinking to his watery grave, he looked up and asked, “Why did you sting me? I saved your life.”

The scorpion replied, “Nothing personal – it’s just my nature.”

You've been reading here long enough to know who you're engaging.

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
i doubt you do know more as i'm a maths teacher; i cant even be bothered to carry on having a chat with a ten year old with a ridiculous belief as "nothing exist outside of true of false"

Jesus Christ, you can't even compose a grammatically correct sentence! There's no way you could teach somebody about Goedel's theorem. If you really are a math teacher, I pity your students.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Jesus Christ, you can't even compose a grammatically correct sentence! There's no way you could teach somebody about Goedel's theorem. If you really are a math teacher, I pity your students.

The only yardstick I have to compare math teachers with is their shoes. What sort do you wear?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The only yardstick I have to compare math teachers with is their shoes. What sort do you wear?

I'm no math teacher. I'm a math oracle.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm no math teacher. I'm a math oracle.

Oracular footwear must be pretty distinctive--and that oracular footwork! Ninja slippers?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Jesus Christ, you can't even compose a grammatically correct sentence! There's no way you could teach somebody about Goedel's theorem. If you really are a math teacher, I pity your students.

LOL

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Have you ever heard the story of the alligator and the scorpion?

Hmm. A variant of this was posed at the end of the second-season opener of CSI (Las Vegas),
with the scorpion and the frog, wherein halfway across the river the scorpion stings the
frog who, as he is dying says, 'Why did you do that? Now, we will both die.' The scorpion replies:
'I can't help it. I'm a scorpion.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
...with a ridiculous belief as "nothing exist outside of true of false"

I'm pretty certain that he didn't claim this.

Or, in the spirit of the thread, your claim ('DoctorScribbles stated that nothing exists outside of
true or false'😉 is a false proposition.

Nemesio (trying to keep up with the lingo)

If only we could harness this energy and use it to make the world a better place or something...🙂