Liar's Paradox

[mapuc]

From a movie scene

- "You can't handle the truth"

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

From a movie scene

- "You can't handle the truth"

Markus

"Why would I want that as long as I can handle a club?" (from a president's head)

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Why would I want that as long as I can handle a club?" (from a president's head)

It's from the movie

"A few good men"

Markus

[Jimbuna]

You think that not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?

[Rockstar]

That's somewhat akin to the saying: it isn't illegal until you get caught.

[TopTorp '92]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Something which cannot be proven false doesn’t provide any proof that it is true.

Huh? How do you know that? Is it true or the case that "Something which cannot be proven false doesn’t provide any proof that it is true"?
Are your own statements subject to validation? Mine are.

Is it true you cannot know the truth? Or, are you lying?

Popper inverted truth, causality and other logical relations along with Humeans, Lockeans and others (Skeptics.)
Hence, Skeptics are liars and Mystics are too.

[TopTorp '92]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. - Carl Sagan

A Value Judgement, Mr. Platapus or Carl Sagan?

[TopTorp '92]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Two things are certain.

A theory that cannot be tested, is no theory. Thus, the theory that somethign is true, is pointless if it cannot be tesated for its truth. We call that a claim.

There can be only one truth, it is free from interpretation. The term implies it, we do not talk of subjective opinions. When there are claimed to be more than one truths, all but one must be wrong. And sometimes even all are wrong. But never more than just one.

For people living life pragmatically, that is enough to navigate between truth and lies.

How can Skybyrd claim certainty that two things are certain?
A contradiction?

[Mr Quatro]

True or false

The stars in heaven are so far away that they might not even still be there, due to it took thousands of light years for what we see to get here.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TopTorp '92

A Value Judgement, Mr. Platapus or Carl Sagan?

One of my favorite, among many favorite Carl Sagan quotes. That was one pretty smart feller.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by TopTorp '92

Huh? How do you know that? Is it true or the case that "Something which cannot be proven false doesn’t provide any proof that it is true"?

When I said that I was primarily thinking about the petty arguments between people or groups of people. The kind of which you see all over the internet these days where tribes argue for their version of the truth. All too often one tribe will say "show me where I'm wrong" or just print what ever comes to mind to fulfill an agenda knowing full well the other cant find proof of it being a wrong. But just because it cant be refuted or shown to be false doesn't make what the other said or printed true.

The earlier example of Aristotles, Plato's and Ptolemy's theories of a geocentrism falls into that too. For several hundred years it was widely accepted that our planet Earth was the point at which the universe revolved. Just because others couldn't prove or didn't want to prove geocentrism false didn't make the then tested and widely accepted theory of geocentrism true.

Is it true you cannot know the truth? Or, are you lying?

I think it's fair to say we can know the truth. We just may not have the means to know all truth. As I said truth exists even without the human act of knowing of its existence. There are many truths in this universe we have yet to be made aware of.

[TopTorp '92]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

How do you define proof?

Proof is reduction to the self evident.
I didn't originate the post to discuss proof.
The purpose of dismissing the Liar's Paradox is that it states no proposition with a Subject and Predicate. There is no identification going on here.
One popular author restated the proposition in order to counter the objection that the paradox is self referential or is meaningless as stated. His reformulation is as follows:


Statement 2 is false.
Statement 1 is true.


Here, the author made two statements out of one and later failed to resolve the Liar's Paradox in his own book. He failed to resolve the paradox because he misses the point.
The point is that the paradox has no Subject-Predicate relationship.


Skeptics say I can't know the truth without a test, which misses the point.
The Liar in the paradox attempts to predicate the term "truth" to "what I am saying."
My point is that truth cannot function as a predicate in the paradox.
For example, you say, "is it true to say that happy dogs wag their tails?"
What you mean by "is it true to say" is not about Truth as such. It means you want to know whether the proposition is true as propositions assert either truth or falsity about reality.
End.


I'll come back next week with another paradox.
TopTorp '92

[Rockstar]

The problem with discussing a philosophy is you cannot declare it to be true. Philosophy are like opinions and you know what they say about opinions they're like buttholes everyone (except dear leader Un) got one.

[TopTorp '92]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The problem with discussing a philosophy is you cannot declare it to be true.

That is why some of use logic and reason.
Otherwise we are back to the Skeptics & Mystics.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by TopTorp '92

That is why some of use logic and reason.
Otherwise we are back to the Skeptics & Mystics.

As I recollect from my '70's logic courses as a unit of required math or philosphy:.."if element 'P' leads to 'Q' then leads to 'R'"... occasionally = S & M!