I agree with that part. — Terrapin Station

So what do you call a proposition that subjectively refers to a state of affairs that obtains? What do you call a proposition that subjectively refers to a state of affairs that doesn't obtain?

Is that per my views that you just said that you understood above, propositions, reference and meaning don't even exist aside from an individual thinking about something in a particular way. So the proposition and how it relates or doesn't relate to the state of affairs is all about that individual's thoughts at the time in question.

That's not the issue, as I keep saying. The issue is whether or not the state of affairs obtains.

So what do you call a proposition that subjectively refers to a state of affairs that obtains? — Michael

Just to make sure we don't ignore this, again, what it is for this to happen is for the person in question to judge it to be happening. When a proposition "matches" a state of affairs in a person's opinion, they say that it's a true proposition (or a "truth").

And likewise, the other is a false proposition in their view (or a "falsehood").

When a proposition "matches" a state of affairs in a person's opinion, they say that it's a true proposition. — Terrapin Station

That's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about when that state of affairs obtains (or doesn't), which is an objective matter, as you've admitted.

You're asking what we call something when a particular sort of reference obtains, right?

No, I'm asking what we call a proposition when the referent obtains, not when the reference obtains.

Okay, but for the referent to obtain, there has to be a reference made, no?

"Referent" is nonsense outside of that.

You can't have a licensee without someone issuing licenses, for example. If you try to talk about a licensee with no licensor, it's nonsense.

I refer you back to this:

But things might be other than they think it to be. They might believe that a particular state of affairs obtains even if it doesn't. — Michael

I agree with that part. — Terrapin Station

So let's say that we have some state of affairs that doesn't obtain, even though I believe that it does. Now lets say that I refer to this state of affairs with the proposition "it is raining".

We have a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that doesn't obtain. What do we call this type of proposition? Obviously not "false" because I judge it to be true, and according to you, that's all it means for a proposition to be true. So is there some other term we can use?

We call it "false." The person who judges it to be true isn't going to say that it is false in that situation, but someone else could say that it is false. (And the person in question would say that it would be false if it weren't raining, but it is (per their belief).)

We call it "false." The person who judges it to be true isn't going to say that it is false in that situation, but someone else would say that it is false. (And the person in question would say that it would be false if it weren't raining, but it is (per their belief).) — Terrapin Station

There is nobody else. There's just me. I judge the proposition to be true, but it refers to a state of affairs that doesn't obtain. What do we call this type of proposition?

That's different than my view. On my view, consensuses, norms, etc. can take a hike. — Terrapin Station

I'm not an evolutionary biologist or physicist, so I may step off a cliff here. I've read a lot about evolution and I believe that humans are genetically related to much simpler organisms. That they are our ancestors or we have both evolved from a common ancestor. I believe that based on my understanding of the consensus of opinion of people who know more about it than I do.

I've read a bit about cosmology. It is my understanding that the gravitational behavior of the observable universe indicates there is more matter than is visible. It has come to be called "dark matter." It is also my understanding that there is no consensus among people who know more about it than I do about what it is, so I don't have an opinion.

If you're asking "what does the person in question call the proposition 'it is raining' in a situation where it isn't raining but they believe it to be raining," then they call it "true."

If you're asking "what does the person in question call a proposition that doesn't match a state of affairs, even though there's a mistaken belief that it does," they'd call it "false," at least at time Tx when it's realized by whomever that it doesn't match the state of affairs.

If you're asking "what does the person in question call the proposition 'it is raining' in a situation where it isn't raining but they believe it to be raning," then they call it "true."

If you're asking "what does the person in question call a proposition that doesn't match a state of affairs, even though there's a mistaken belief that it does," they'd call it "false," at least at time Tx when it's realized by whomever that it doesn't match the state of affairs. — Terrapin Station

I'm asking if we have a term that refers to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that doesn't actually obtain. We already have the term "false" that refers to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that is judged not to obtain. Do we have a different term for the former? Or does the term "false" have two different (albeit related) meanings?

I'm asking if we have a term that refers to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that doesn't actually obtain. We already have the term "false" that refers to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that is judged not to obtain. Do we have a different term for the former? Or does the term "false" have two different (albeit related) meanings? — Michael

There is no difference. Comparing propositions to states of affairs is always a judgment. There's no "objective view."

Truth and falsehood are judgments about the relation of a proposition to something else.

That's not saying something necessarily about language. It's saying something about judging a relation between a proposition and something else.

There is no difference. Comparing propositions to states of affairs is always a judgment. There's no "objective view." — Terrapin Station

I'm not comparing propositions to states of affairs. I'm comparing states of affairs that obtain to states of affairs that don't.

I'm not comparing propositions to states of affairs — Michael

Then why are you using the words "reference," "description," "proposition" etc.?

Then why are you using the words "reference," "description," "proposition" etc.? — Terrapin Station

Because we have propositions that refers to states of affairs that obtain and propositions that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain. These propositions are different, even if everybody in the world judges them all to be true (or all to be false).

If you're using those words you're talking about people making judgments about things.

If you want to just talk the world outside of people thinking about it, there are no "states of affairs that do not obtain"--they don't exist. That's what it means to not obtain.

Because we have propositions that refers to states of affairs that obtain and propositions that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain. — Michael

So what? I thought you weren't talking about propositions??

You can't talk about propositions, references, etc. and how they link up with aything without talking about people making judgments about that stuff, because that's all there is to that. There's no other way that propositions link up with anything.

We can have propositions that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain, even if everybody believes that they do obtain. According to your definition, all these propositions are true because all these propositions are judged to refer to states of affairs that do obtain. However, they don't obtain. So I want to know if we have a special term to refer to propositions (whether true or false) that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain (or do obtain).

We can have propositions that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain, even if everybody believes that they do obtain. — Michael

No you can't, because reference doesn't exist outside of particular individuals thinking about it however they do.

We can have propositions that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain, even if everybody believes that they do obtain. — Michael

I'm writing another post because you respond so fast that I don't know if you'll see an edit.

Actually, I retract that last comment. I would say that you could have that, but it wouldn't be that it's false outside of everyone thinking it's true. I was thinking that you were saying it could be false (and maybe because you said that earlier)

No you can't, because reference doesn't exist outside of particular individuals thinking about it however they do. — Terrapin Station

That the proposition refers to a particular state of affairs depends on the individual thinking about it however they do, but that the state of affairs obtains (or doesn't) is an objective fact, as you've already admitted.

Therefore, the proposition can refer to a state of affairs that is judged to obtain even though it doesn't, or that is judged not to obtain even though it does.

Actually, I retract that last comment. I would say that you could have that, but it wouldn't be that it's false outside of everyone thinking it's true. — Terrapin Station

I'm not saying that it would be false. I'm going along with your definition of "true" and "false". I'm asking if you have a different term to refer to this kind of proposition.

So I want to know if we have a special term to refer to propositions (whether true or false) that refer to states of affairs that don't obtain (and do obtain). — Michael

No. The word for that is "false."

There's not a special word for propositions that people would judge to be false in a different scenario.

No. The word for that is "false."

There's not a special word for propositions that people would judge to be false in a different scenario. — Terrapin Station

So we have the word "false" that refers both to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that is judged to not obtain and to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that actually doesn't obtain?

So we have both an objective and a subjective notion of truth (and falsity).

So we have the word "false" that refers both to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that is judged to not obtain and to a proposition that refers to a state of affairs that actually doesn't obtain? — Michael

People can't do anything but judge whether some state of affairs obtains or not first off.

So you're wondering if there's a word for a scenario that isn't something that people could do.