When are conditional statements actually true?
I am getting contradicting answers. Please help.
One resource, a geometry book, says that to prove a conditional statement true, you must show the conclusion is true every time the hypothesis is true.
On the contrary, however, a discrete mathematics book says a conditional statement is true unless the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false.
These methods for checking the truth of a conditional statement do not produce the same results, however. For example, consider the conditional statement
(1) If today is Saturday, then 5 + 5 = 6.
Under the first method, this (1) is false, because when there is a time when the hypothesis is true (It is Saturday), but the conclusion is false (5 + 5 never equals 6). A counterexample exists, as they would say.
But under the second method, the statement's truth value changes with time. It is true when it is not Saturday since the condition for falsehood, that it is Saturday and 5 + 5 does not equal 6, is...
I have asked many regular non-philosopher type folks about how to avoid appearing "rude, crude and stupid" when indicating sexual interest in women. Not many well formed answers are given to me but I am told that a necessary ingredient is subtlety. You should never be direct about your intentions. Is being direct and straightforward really rude? What does saying that you must not be straightforward imply about the nature of those intentions in the first place? What then distinguishes rude from non-rude forms of expressing sexual intention?
Opponents to gay marriage often argue that marriage is "by definition" a union between one man and one women. I support gay marriage myself, but this kind of argument is interesting to me--I'm not sure what to make of it. What does it mean to say that marriage is, by definition, thus and so? (Is this just a statement about the way people tend to use the word "marriage"?) More importantly, should we ever be persuaded by such arguments?
Is this sentence true:
"Miles Davis and narwhals both have horns."
The word "horn" can mean a musical instrument (which only Miles Davis has) or a bony protrusion (which only narwhals have.) But is it possible to mean both things at once (which would make the sentence true). Or does the sentence only have two possible meanings, both of which are false?
- Read more about Is this sentence true:
- 2 comments
- Log in to post comments