Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is wrong about this argument against correspondence theory of tru

Rate this topic


Edwin

Recommended Posts

  1. Only statements about something that exists can be true or false. (Assume for reductio)
  2. Bugaboos do not exist because Bugaboos, by postulation, are perfectly round, perfectly square creatures.
  3. "Bugaboos exist" is a statement about something that does not exist, namely Bugaboos.
  4. Therefore "Bugaboos exist" is neither true nor false. (By 1)
  5. But if Bugaboos do not exist, then "Bugaboos exist" is false.
  6. Therefore "Bugaboos exist" is false, in contradiction with 4.
  7. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, 1 is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went wrong at step one with conceding "only", but what has this got to do with the correspondence theory of truth? Perhaps you should state that as well.

I agree with 1. in that only statements about something that exists can be true or false. For example, "kdfsd is pink" is absurd and neither true nor false because kdfsd does not correspond with anything in reality. I think this is what correspondence theory of truth says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about sjkdhfskdfjh? Are they frogs with beards?

What about sjkdhfskdfjh?

You stated, "Only statements about something that exists can be true or false."

I provided a false statement about something (The Unicorn) that does not exist. Isn't that enough for you to concede that your proposition is flawed?

How about:

1. Statements making claims about a subject described with random letters (gibberish) can not be evaluated for truthfulness.

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about sjkdhfskdfjh?

You stated, "Only statements about something that exists can be true or false."

I provided a false statement about something (The Unicorn) that does not exist. Isn't that enough for you to concede that your proposition is flawed?

How about:

1. Statements making claims about a subject described with random letters (gibberish) can not be evaluated for truthfulness.

Unicorns correspond with various art in reality which have been with us since antiquity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, said clearly, "Unicorns exist".

Ok, I'll accept that you are including Unicorns in your definition of things that exist. Can you provide me an example of some thing which you can make a statement about that does not exist? (Obviously, if you're using gibberish, we are not talking about something - so it cannot be evaluated at all.)

If Unicorns are fair game, I'm wondering what you would define as outside of "something that exists".

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with 1. in that only statements about something that exists can be true or false. For example, "kdfsd is pink" is absurd and neither true nor false because kdfsd does not correspond with anything in reality. I think this is what correspondence theory of truth says.

Nope. Only statements about something that exists can be true. Of course false statements can be made about things that do not exist, that is mainly what it means to be false, the non-existence of the referent is what makes it false. Statements that are contradictions are false because contradictions do not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Contradictions do not exist." is like saying "False is false." Statements identifying what is false (statements about statements) are all justified by the law of identity or they are not justified at all. The law of identity is axiomatically true.

"Contradictions do not exist" is a corollary proposition to "Existence is identity". Take each term in "existence is identity" and negate it, and reverse the order of subject and predicate (contraposition): "Non-identity is non-existence". In proper vocabulary "Contradictions do not exist", and it is true because it is a logical equivalent to a statement that is axiomatic and about something that exists (or in this case, everything that exists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The assumption that the fact something does not exist since there is no proof to it necessarily contradicts reality

2. The circular logics of 'since a claim is arbitrary and the arbitrary does not exist an arbitrary argument is a false argument'

Summary: The existence of an arbitrary thing is not a false proposition, but rather the thought that the arbitrary exists in essence.

The proposition: a pink rabbit does not exist is a default. You can prove it otherwise and then it shall become falsse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that this statement is wrong: "'Bugaboos exist' is a statement about something that does not exist, namely Bugaboos." It -is- a statement about something that exists, namely existence itself. It becomes obvious when you rewrite "Bugaboos exist" as "Bugaboos are part of existence". As bugaboos are not part of existence, the statement is false.

Edited by Darylium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bugaboos do not exist because Bugaboos, by postulation, are perfectly round, perfectly square creatures."

This needs to be broken into its assumptions.

DEF A - A Bugaboo is a perfectly round, perfectly square creature (A requires BOTH B and C)

DEF B - A perfectly round creature contains no edges

DEF C - A perfectly square creature contains edges (B and C are contradictory)

The axiom of non-contradiction states that contradictions do not exist and so the bugaboo does not exist by definition. In fact, asserting the existence of the Bugaboo is the same as asserting the existence OF a contradiction, since it has contradictory properties. Please reread the last two sentences.

You begin by asserting a contradiction exists and then proceed to "prove" things based on that point to create another 'contradiction'. However, the argument's premise in pointing out the second contradiction is that contradictions do not exist, thereby revealing a contradiction in the author's thinking.

Edited by Q.E.D.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the argument rephrased:

1. Only statements about something that exists can be true or false. (Assume for reductio)

2. "Contradictions exist" is a statement about something that does not exist, namely contradictions.

3. Therefore "contradictions exist" is neither true nor false. (By 1)

4. But if contradictions do not exist, then "contradictions exist" is false.

5. Therefore "contradictions exist" is false, in contradiction with 4.

6. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, 1 is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Contradictions do not exist." is like saying "False is false." Statements identifying what is false (statements about statements) are all justified by the law of identity or they are not justified at all. The law of identity is axiomatically true.

"Contradictions do not exist" is a corollary proposition to "Existence is identity". Take each term in "existence is identity" and negate it, and reverse the order of subject and predicate (contraposition): "Non-identity is non-existence". In proper vocabulary "Contradictions do not exist", and it is true because it is a logical equivalent to a statement that is axiomatic and about something that exists (or in this case, everything that exists).

I don't disagree, but doesn't the above serve as an exception to this statement, "Only statements about something that exists can be true."

(i.e. Unless the statement is confirming, as true, the non-existence of the subject.)

Anyway, I still don't see what is trying to be established in the statement. Are we just establishing that there can be no facts about arbitrary gibberish words and concepts?

And further, Contradictions DO exist in a very specific context. They don't physically exist, but there are many examples of metaphysical contradictions held by individuals. People often pursue values and goals in contradiction with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, but doesn't the above serve as an exception to this statement, "Only statements about something that exists can be true."

(i.e. Unless the statement is confirming, as true, the non-existence of the subject.)

Statements themselves are existents, even the false ones. The common element is that the act of reference succeeds for true statements whether that referent is outside of consciousness or within it. Referring fails for false statements. A statement about unicorns fails because no referent for unicorn can be found outside of consciousness. A statement about a statement about unicorns succeeds when it finds that statement, the referent is resolved.

Are we just establishing that there can be no facts about arbitrary gibberish words and concepts?

Yes, because arbitrary words do not correspond to anything.

And further, Contradictions DO exist in a very specific context. They don't physically exist, but there are many examples of metaphysical contradictions held by individuals. People often pursue values and goals in contradiction with each other.

Thoughts, values, goals and statements are all existents in the mind of some subject, so they are epistemological contradictions and some of them are about metaphysics (existents outside the mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Good post Grames. I think one of the most common mistake folks make is forgetting that concepts are mental existents , including invalid ones.

Exactly. And thanks Grames from me also, your posts have been very clear and to the point.

I only seem to be able to experience EXAMPLES of concepts; concepts are like class types in Java, whereas I can only experience instances of a given concrete type.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...