The only way it can be true is to import content beyond what's there, to have a prior understanding that all ms are ps and that all ss are ms. Lacking that, I don't see how any m is a p, or any s an m. It's a form without content. Implied content, sure, if you want, but that;s not the point, is it. — tim wood
So, it's not true by virtue of being the result of valid inference? — creativesoul
truth is a semantic notion - not just syntax; so it comes into the story along with the content. — Banno
I am just trying to define a true and false. — guptanishank
Seeking definitions. Bad idea. Gets you in to no end of trouble. — Banno
Beer, no so much. Shiraz, thanks — Banno
So, it's not true by virtue of being the result of valid inference?
— creativesoul
Ordinarily this question would be out-of-court, but here I have to ask it: what do you mean by "by virtue of"? — tim wood
A proposition's being the conclusion of a valid argument allows you to take that proposition as true. If all the concepts are a priori, then it is true. If, on the other hand, the concepts are a posteriori, empirical, contingent, then you may take the proposition as true per argument, but subject to verification. Here we encounter the distinction between logic and rhetoric; the quality of their respective truths is different. Supposing validity and truth to be different things helps keep them straight. — tim wood
Supposing them to be the same thing means that all arguments cast in terms of either truth or validity can be recast in terms of the other. Can we really resolve the question of whether to attack at dawn on the same terms of resolving whether 2+2=4? — tim wood
Earlier you used the notion of what makes a true proposition true. I asked a question about that, but it has not been answered. — creativesoul
I have no idea what you're trying to say with regard to all the concepts being a priori or a posteriori. Nor do I see how such talk helps to understand what truth is ans the role that it plays in everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written. The talk of quality of truth is odd as well. — creativesoul
Could you elaborate upon that? I mean what is the criterion which, when met by a candidate, make the candidate a priori? — creativesoul
Earlier you used the notion of what makes a true proposition true. I asked a question about that, but it has not been answered.
— creativesoul
My sentence was, ""...that which makes individual true propositions true." You're correct, the extra "true" is redundant. In my style manual it says redundancy is not always bad, but it was this time. — tim wood
A proposition can be true or false (either-or), or neither (neither-nor). Folks sometimes forget the neither-nor. We should attack at dawn is a neither-nor. Peanut butter is good for you is neither-nor (bad for folks allergic to peanuts). These propositions are a posteriori, true, that is, depending on circumstances. Neither-nor propositions occur in arguments, sometimes as conclusions. If the argument is valid, then the conclusion follows and is true under the argument.
For example, it's possible to argue that we should attack at dawn. The argument being valid, then, so far as the argument is concerned, we should attack at dawn. Assuming that what we should do is somehow connected with something to be accomplished, then we will only know whether we should have attacked at dawn after the dawn. If we attack and lose, then the proposition that was true last night was not borne out by events, and in the light of day the truth is that we should not have attacked at dawn. — tim wood
Gold is a yellow metal is true a priori: it's always true. Arguments using propositions that are true a priori, that are valid, yield true conclusions. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Now the question: how does the form of the argument make the conclusion true? Answer, it doesn't. The idea is that if the premises are true, and if the argument is valid (form), then you may conclude the conclusion is true. It seems to work. Try writing out any syllogism in valid form where the premises are true and the conclusion false. (Actually, you can prove it by testing all the possible forms of syllogisms, I think there are 256. Apparently Aristotle did that.)
Ok. Now what is truth. I have argued elsewhere that there is no such thing as truth. It's just a word to collect the idea of true. Propositions are true (or not), this one for this reason, that one for that. The reasons don't have to be the same. True-ness, then, is a quality of propositions. As to there being qualities of being true, there is at least contingent truth along with a priori truth.
A priori means universally and necessarily so (in contrast to a posteriori, maybe true, determined by observation/experience). — tim wood
Best you work this through yourself. Pose any true propositions you like, then ask yourself what makes them true.If that which makes a proposition true differs from true proposition to true proposition, then in what way does it differ? — creativesoul
Always?What should be done is a moral matter. — creativesoul
Syllogisms are never true, they're just valid in form , or not. "Premise" names a proposition in use in a syllogism: the first (major), or the second (minor). All propositions in syllogisms are of the form (All, some, no) S are (are not) P. The conclusion is also a proposition. The premises are presumed true (axioms or theorems). Their truth and use in a valid argument warrants the truth of the conclusion.A different tack will help, I think. We are discussing logical truth, which involves an argument. We are talking about the different kinds of premisses that a syllogism can have, notably what makes them true. However...
A true statement does not require logic. Thus, either truth does not require logic, or true statements do not require truth. — creativesoul
f that which makes a proposition true differs from true proposition to true proposition, then in what way does it differ?
— creativesoul
Best you work this through yourself. Pose any true propositions you like, then ask yourself what makes them true. — tim wood
A different tack will help, I think. We are discussing logical truth, which involves an argument. We are talking about the different kinds of premisses that a syllogism can have, notably what makes them true...
— creativesoul
Syllogisms are never true, they're just valid in form , or not. — tim wood
The premises are presumed true (axioms or theorems).Their truth and use in a valid argument warrants the truth of the conclusion. — tim wood
If you have thought about what makes true propositions true, then you recognize that logic - organized thinking - may well underpin some true propositions. So the determination that a proposition is true may well require some logic.
As to anything about truth, you might want to try to define it first - good luck with that. Post here if you come up with one!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.