From: oleary@staff.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: Truth again
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:09:51 GMT

In article <1h4r5rINNbl@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes:
>>>Consider the sentence which would come first on an alphabetized
>>>list of 100-word sentences of English.
>>>
>>>It is either a true sentence of English or a false one. No one has
>>>ever interpreted it (I'll wager). With the possible exception of
>>>one of us, no one ever will.
>
>Response from O'Leary:
>
>>Not only do you not define truth with respect to sentences of English, your
>>example is circular.  The sentence is or isn't syntactically correct and may
>>or may not have semantic content.  By saying that the sentence is on a list
>>of English sentences, you imply that it is syntactically correct.  The
>>semantic content of the sentence, however, still depends on it being
>>interpreted.
>
>Of COURSE I didn't define truth with respect to sentences of English.
>Would you like me to do so? What sorts of criteria must I meet? If
>O'Leary insists, I will do my best to define truth for English, but
>I'm not promising anything.

In order to enter a meaningful discussion of "truth value" we must define
a common basis for it for at least the set we are considering (English
sentences).

>The rest of the objection is very close to jibberish.
>By saying that the sentence is on a list of English sentences I
>OBVIOUSLY imply that it is syntactically correct. Does O'Leary
>deny that the syntactically correct sentences of English are
>enumerable? They are obviously enumerable by an alphabetic list.
>Does he deny that there are ANY 100-word sentences of English?
>Or that the set of 100-word sentences of English is enumerated
>by alphabetization? Or that the list has a first entry?

Since an infinite number of sentences can be formed with the syntactic
rules provided by the English language, yes, I'll deny that the
syntactically correct sentences of English are enumerable.  I don't,
however deny the existence of your particular sentence.
 
You've come no closer to defining "truth value."

>The semantic content of a sentence depends on its being interpreted
>in one sense. This is precisely the point I have been making.
>If we regard English sentences as intepreted, then they have a truth
>value. Whether they have truth value is independent of whether anyone
>has ever actually interpreted them, or whether anyone ever will
>interpret them. THAT was the point Randall was making. He worried
>that he could not give an example of a sentence that no one has
>ever interpreted or ever will. So I gave an example, not by
>constructing it but by describing a definite English sentence.

Without interpretation, truth value (however you may wish to define it) is
meaningless.  Even with interpretation, truth value is, at best,
inconsistent between interpretations.

"The sky is green."

What is the truth value of the above sentence?

>The complaint that my example is "circular" is ridiculous. No circularity
>has been pointed to.

It was circular in that truth value seemed to be defined by you saying
that your sentence was on a list that your sentence was on.  It was so
obvious that even you pointed it out.


+------------------->  Signature Block : Version 3.C  <---------------------+
|                                                                           |
|    "Nothing astonishes men so much as common-sense and plain dealing."    |
|                                            --- Ralph Waldo Emerson        |
|                                                                           |
+---------------->   Copyright (c) 1992 by Doc O'Leary   <------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4662 sci.logic:2515