Sentential Falsehood Logic FL4
ABSTRACT: In some philosophical conceptions, statements are valued as true, false, senseless (neither true nor false), or inconsistent. Falsehood logic FL4 makes it possible to operate correctly by such statements. Logic with falsehood operator FL4 is formulated. For FL4 metatheorems of consistency, deduction and completeness are fulfilled. Correlation between falsehood logic FL4 and four-valued Belnap’s logic and von Wright’s truth logic T"LM is considered. In FL4, the implication for Belnap’s logic is defined so that the truth-valued matrix of it is characterized for logic of tautological consequences Efde. Correlation between three-valued falsehood sublogic FL3N of FL4 and three-valued Kleene’s logic and Lukasiewicz’s logic is considered. Lukasiewicz’s three-valued logic is functionally equivalent to FL3N logic. Correlation between three-valued falsehood sublogic FL3B of FL4 and three-valued paraconsistent Priest’s logic is also considered.
The construction of falsehood logic FL4 (1) and its analysis answer the question about the use of truth and falsehood notions. In some philosophical conceptions statements are valued as true, false, senseless (neither true nor false), inconsistent. Falsehood logic FL4 makes it possible to operate correctly by such statements.
The main principles of falsehood logic FL4 are as follows:
1. The notion of falsehood will be considered as applied only to sentences of the following form: "Sentence 'S' is false" (in symbols: '(- S)' ).
The proposition '(- S)' is a proposition about falsehood of the sentence 'S' and it is a proposition in a metalanguage related to the language in which a sentence 'S' is formulated.
The set of propositions of language, metalanguage, metametalanguage and so on is considered as a whole. And one can operate with these propositions (viz. 'S', '(- S)', '(- S(- S))', ...) simultaneously in the language of FL4.
2. We shall consider the notion of falsehood as a primitive one which will be used as a logical operator in this formal system.
3. The sentence '(- S)' is always either true or false, while the sentence 'S' may have other truth-values than true or false. In other words, the laws of classical logic are valid for sentence '(- S)', but need not to be valid for sentence 'S'.
4. Sentences with the implication will be evaluated in standard way.
Let '(S1 ® S2) ' stands for 'S1 implies S2'.
'(S1 ® S2)' is true iff 'S1' is false or 'S2' is true.
'(S1 ® S2)' is false iff 'S1' is true and 'S2' is false.
In order to understand the concept of Moore’s Paradox, we must first assess and understand the behavior of logical and performative contradictions. Credited for devising and examining this paradox, George Edward Moore, a British philosopher who taught at the University of Cambridge and studied ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics describes the paradox in its omissive and commissive forms in which we will discuss thoroughly. I will then express my standpoint on which solution is the most optimal choice for Moore’s Paradox in order to analyze and explain why I believe my solution is superior to other solutions. I will also discuss any issues that arise
The argument posited by Sider (S1) can be seen as an argument by elimination, where the premises if accepted, reject the possibility of S2 and S3. As such, the argument suffers from whether the re...
The settlement came as a surprise to most people. Hopefully it can provide some relief for players and their families who are suffering with long-term conditions caused by concussions.
Many memories are made in football, but sadly some of the greatest players cannot recall them. The National Football League has been associated with concussions and brain traumas throughout the years, but lately it has been exposed by media and NFL veterans. The league recently “reached a $765 million preliminary settlement with thousands of former players who were suing the league over its treatment of concussions…” (Waldron). Many former players are experiencing the effects of taking hard hits over and over again; they were not properly treated, which makes the injury worse and long term. The concussion issue in the NFL is more prevalent today, because it affects not only the players, but the league as a whole.
A paradox stems from a statement that apparently contradicts itself yet might still be true. In most cases logical paradoxes are essentially known to be invalid but are used anyways to promote critical thinking. The Raven’s paradox is an example of a paradox that essentially goes against what most logical paradoxes stand for in that it tries to make a valid claim through inductive logic. Carl Hempel is known for his famous accepting of this paradox with minor adjustments by the use of the contraposition rule. In this paper, however, I argue that Hempel’s solution to the Raven’s paradox is actually unsuccessful because he fails to take into account a possible red herring that serves as evidence against his solution. Irvin John Good is responsible for the formulation of the red herring argument as he tries to prove that the observation of a black raven can potentially negate the Raven’s paradox as valid. In addition to Good’s claim, Karl Popper and his view of falsificationism also functions as evidence to reject Hempel’s solution. Using Popper’s view as a basis, Israel Scheffler and Nelson Goodman formulate the concept of selective confirmation to reject the contraposition rule used by Hempel. Based off of all of the rejections that Hempel’s solution has it can clearly be seen that the Raven’s paradox has flaws that principally lead it to it being invalid.
The Procter and Gamble Company. (2013, November 17). Company Strategy. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.pginvestor.com: http://www.pginvestor.com/GenPage.aspx?IID=4004124&GKP=208821
In this paper I intend to analyze logically this proposition, trying to focus the question of contradiction.
Proposition is a statement that expresses a statement that is uncertain. It could be true or false.
I think it is wise for the board of executives to take an active role in coming up with a system to evaluate their products. This evaluation system is considered a function strategy. In our text, it tells us that functional strategies consist of production procedures, advertising, product research, product development, personnel, economic, and support. (Coulter, K. 2013, p. 7) Due to the fact that Clorox has a wide range of products that are very diverse, it is important for them to evaluate them based on the current market. This strategy has allowed the company to evaluate the value of the products before resulting in a price increase or decrease. Clorox made a competitive strategy when they decided to go green. This was during the period when the company was going through leadership shift and the CEO thought
The failure of the NFL to disclose credible research linking concussions to permanent, hidden long-term brain injury to the players can be interpreted as both ethical and unethical. Ethical theories and traps influenced the NFL’s decision. Not disclosing the research is considered moral by the ethical theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarian ethics considers the best decision is one which maximizes overall happiness and minimizes overall pain is more ethical. Utilitarianism’s goal is to produce the best outcome for the largest number of people. The NFL’s failure to reveal the research connecting concussion to permanent brain injury’s is in line with utilitarian ethics. A larger population benefits from football compared to the small number of
In fact, we see that (1) is a logically necessary truth, the denial of which is self-contradictory. As David Oderberg argues:
An issue that comes up is that not every sentence that states the “truth of themselves are paradoxical” (Bernecker). For example, “This sentence is true,” where “this sentence is addressing the sentence “UCI is located in Irvine, Ca.” This sentence is true; it refers to the truth of another sentence at the same level (Bernecker). The first sentence refers to another sentence, and both are at the same level. In this example, “true” applies to a sentence at the same level, which does not follow Tarski’s belief that “true” and “false” should actually apply to “sentences at a different level” (Bernecker). I do agree with Professor Bernecker, that Tarski’s idea of separating object and meta-language is a bit extreme, however it is an interesting approach and I believe that using this approach and bettering it will be the answer to the paradox. I think a flaw of Tarski’s solution is the belief that “true,” and “false” apply to “sentences at a different level” as proven above, but I think the issue of the paradox is the use of “true,” and “false,” which Tarski’s solution tries to resolve (Bernecker). Not only does Tarski separate object and meta-language, but also misinterprets the intuitive way people actually understand the truth value of sentences at the same level (Bernecker). So his solution does stir confusion, but I do believe that this is one of the better solutions out there, due to the fact that it addresses the use of “true,” and
After having explored what truth is in the three areas of knowledge (natural sciences, mathematics and the arts), it can be said that the application of the truth theories differ. It is not the way truth is seen, because truth can simply mean that there is no untrue, and therefore we can concluded that the way truth is developed and used in the areas of knowledge is different.
If I would make any proposition whatever [P], then by that I would have a logical error [E]...
1. Non-cancellability: Conventional implicatures are commitments, and give rise to entailments, though separate from the ‘at-issue’ entailments of a sentence.