Lester Zick wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:09:07 -0400, email@example.com wrote: > >Virgil wrote: > >> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > >> Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:14:26 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > >> > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > >> > > > > > >[...] > > > >> > >Truth of "If P then Q" need not require assuming the truth of "P". > >> > > >> > Never said it did. I just said the truth of any Q demonstrated of P > >> > requires the assumption of truth for P. > >> > >> But that only means that the truth of Q is conditional on the truth of > >> P, and does not require that P be true, unless one claims that Q is > >> unconditionally true. > >> > >> > Otherwise the truth of Q > >> > remains problematic. It's an old and ongoing problem in Aristotelian > >> > syllogistic inference: the truth of any conclusion is only supported > >> > by the truth of the premises involved. > >> > >> Precisely. > >> > > >> > >If P and Q are compound statements such that Q is false whenever P is > >> > >false, then "If P then Q" will be true regardless of the truth of P. > >> > > >> > Don't quite follow the logic here. The whole "If" conditional is an > >> > assumption of truth on the face of it. > >> > >> It is an assumption of relative truth, but not of any absolute truth. > > > > > >There is vast confusion in the use of the terms "relative truth", > >"absolute truth", "conditional truth", "unconditional truth", > >"trivially true", "vacuously true", "contingent truth", > >"necessary truth", and other locutions. It's an embarrassment. > > I agree. > > >I addressed the topic of the relation of truth to validity > >in my postings to sci.logic on June 22, 23, and 24 of this year. > > But I don't think resolution of the problem depends on inventing a new > term to describe problematic truth.
1) If by "the problem" you mean the relation of truth to validity, that is not my solution in the postings referred to above.
2) In general, inventing a new term to resolve a problem may or may not be appropriate.
3) If by "the problem" you mean dealing with "problematic truth" (a new sort of "truth" to add to the list?) perhaps you're right. But, we have to admit, there's a big gray area of utterances that are hard to determine if they are true, or even meaningful.