Calling out Dr. Scribbles

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

At least this useless ping pong keeps them off the streets .... 😛

Originally posted by ivanhoe
At least this useless ping pong keeps them off the streets .... 😛

True. I was attacked by a gang of philosophers in the street last night. They wanted me to prove that I really exist, and then they asked me to define "wisdom" at knifepoint.

I blame television.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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: "M ...[text shortened]... opposite truth values does not mean that its propositional content is both true and false.

Your answers bring up a lot of knotty issues. I'll address them at some later point.

But allow me to inform you of the ultimate destination of my argumentation.

Consider the following statement:

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster has exactly 24 tentacles."

It seems that the proposition inherent in this statement is neither true nor false.

Perhaps you would like to take a preemptive strike at any reasoning in favour of this heretical stance.

Indeed, given your self-confessed inclination for Scorpionesque skewering, perhaps you can't help yourself from doing so.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole


"The Flying Spaghetti Monster has exactly 24 tentacles."

It seems that the proposition inherent in this statement is neither true nor false.

Well, what is the proposition inherent in that statement?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, what is the proposition inherent in that statement?

Well, something like, there exists a Flying Spaghetti Monster, such that he has exactly 24 tentacles.

You going to say the proposition is senseless just because he doesn't exist, right?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Well, something like, there exists a Flying Spaghetti Monster, such that he has exactly 24 tentacles.

You going to say the proposition is senseless just because he doesn't exist, right?

No, I'm going to say that I believe it is a false proposition, because I doubt that it is in fact the case that such a monster exists. However, if I am wrong, it is a true proposition.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, I'm going to say that I believe it is a false proposition, because I doubt that it is in fact the case that such a monster exists. However, if I am wrong, it is a true proposition.

Would you also claim that it is false that the FSM has a Noodly Appendage if the FSM does not exist?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Would you also claim that it is false that the FSM has a Noodly Appendage if the FSM does not exist?

Yes, if we extract propositional content from that statement in the same way we just did for that last statement; that is, if its propositional content is "There exists an FSM such that it has a noodly appendage."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes, if we extract propositional content from that statement in the same way we just did for that last statement; that is, if its propositional content is "There exists an FSM such that it has a noodly appendage."

But, the FSM *does* have a Noodly Appendage! It is NOT mere nonsense to say so!

Aren't you being a semantic spoilsport by refusing to allow that some statements referring to well-established functional entities are true or false? Or indeed by claiming that truth and falsity can only be properly predicated of propositions, and not of statements?

Would you accept that the following proposition is true?

"There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Noodly Appendage."

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
But, the FSM *does* have a Noodly Appendage! It is NOT mere nonsense to say so!

You're just equivocating on the propositional content of the statement in question, and mistaking that equivocation for a construction of a proposition that does not have exactly one truth value. That is, we're right back where we started.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Or indeed by claiming that truth and falsity can only be properly predicated of propositions, and not of statements?

At issue in this call-out is whether all propositions have a unique truth value. Does it remain your contention that there exists some propostion without a unique truth value? If so, then I hereby reissue my challenge: If you think I'm wrong, then try to construct a proposition that is neither true nor false.

All you've done so far is to present statements about whose propositional content one could equivocate.

You're just introducing a red herring by examining the truth values of things that aren't propositions. As such, I would prefer if statements and their truth values not be presented as evidence here, as they have no bearing on whether all propositions have truth values, anymore than the fact that some squares have no radius has any bearing on whether all circles do.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole


Would you accept that the following proposition is true?

"There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Noodly Appendage."

Sure. It is nomologically impossible for a proposition of the form "There exists a fictional X" to be false, since the proposition itself is conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, I'm going to say that I believe it is a false proposition, because I doubt that it is in fact the case that such a monster exists. However, if I am wrong, it is a true proposition.

Do you not first need to test the validity of the proposition "Does a Flying Spaghetti monster exist?". For your statement to hold any value?

Prior to which may you need first to define an algorithm for testing subject and condition, in order to determine the existence of a proposition.

Without sounding to reductionist I would think (logical) system only works within the constraints of its own definition.

Originally posted by EAPOE
Do you not first need to test the validity of the proposition "Does a Flying Spaghetti monster exist?". For your statement to hold any value?

Prior to which may you need first to define an algorithm for testing subject and condition, in order to determine the existence of a proposition.

Without sounding to reductionist I would think (logical) system only works within the constraints of its own definition.

No. You are confusing knowledge with truth.

The proposition in question has a truth value regardless of my knowledge of it, or my ability to come into such knowledge, or my ability to conceive of a test of its truth value, or anything else.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No. You are confusing knowledge with truth.

The proposition in question has a truth value regardless of my knowledge of it, or my ability to come into such knowledge, or my ability to conceive of a test of its truth value, or anything else.

How do you go about establishing a truth?

Can you give an example of a truth?

1+1=2 True or False?

As conscious experience is subjective we can answer the question as follows.

True. . . (Every time the calculation has been carried out and observed the answer has been two. By consensus of many carrying through this operation and obtaining the answer 2 it is concluded the proposition 1+1=2 is true. But not an absolute truth, the proviso is held that if the operation is carried out and a different answer is generated, the result will be investigated and if as a result the logic is shown to be at fault it will be revised.)

Not absolutely true. True only as a result of consensus.