{"id":1905,"date":"2009-11-21T04:54:38","date_gmt":"2009-11-21T03:54:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=1905"},"modified":"2009-11-21T04:54:38","modified_gmt":"2009-11-21T03:54:38","slug":"sentences-as-secondary-truth-bearers-in-a-pluralistic-proposition-theory-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2009\/11\/sentences-as-secondary-truth-bearers-in-a-pluralistic-proposition-theory-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentences as secondary truth bearers in a pluralistic proposition theory #2"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!-- \t\t@page { margin: 2cm } \t\tP { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } \t\tA:link { so-language: zxx } -->I have had some additional thoughts about this after discussing it with fast <a href=\"http:\/\/www.philosophyforum.com\/philosophy-forums\/secondary-branches-philosophy\/philosophy-language\/6594-true-sentences.html\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>First fast <a href=\"http:\/\/www.philosophyforum.com\/philosophy-forums\/secondary-branches-philosophy\/philosophy-language\/6594-true-sentences.html#post104380\">asks<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">\u201cYou said, &#8220;a sentence is true [if and only if] it expresses exactly one proposition and that proposition is true. I don&#8217;t understand the reasoning behind the &#8220;exactly one&#8221; condition as you have worded it. An implication of what you said is that a sentence that expresses more than one proposition (hence, not exactly one proposition) is not true because you said, &#8220;if and ONLY if&#8221;, but I don&#8217;t see why you would think that.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">[&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">Is it because if one of the propositions is false, then the sentence is both true and false and that&#8217;s a contradiction?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>I did <a href=\"http:\/\/www.philosophyforum.com\/philosophy-forums\/secondary-branches-philosophy\/philosophy-language\/6594-true-sentences.html#post104382\">reply<\/a> to that in the thread but I think it deserves a longer reply.<\/p>\n<p>First, yes, it is to avoid conflicts with bivalence <em>about sentences<\/em><span style=\"font-style: normal;\">, that is,<\/span> for all sentences, a sentence  is either true or false but not both. But then I realized that maybe one could drop bivalence about sentences but not drop it about propositions. Supposing that one drops bivalence about sentences, then one can adopt much broader truth-conditions of sentences:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">A sentence is true iff it expresses a true proposition.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">A sentence is false iff it expresses a false proposition.<\/p>\n<p>However it is also possible to accept broader truth-conditions even keeping bivalence about sentences. One could just specify that all the propositions expressed by a sentence has to have the particular truth value. It doesn&#8217;t matter if it is one or more:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">A sentence is true iff it expresses only true propositions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.25cm;\">A sentence is false iff it expresses only false propositions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I have had some additional thoughts about this after discussing it with fast here. First fast asks: \u201cYou said, &#8220;a sentence is true [if and only if] it expresses exactly one proposition and that proposition is true. I don&#8217;t understand the reasoning behind the &#8220;exactly one&#8221; condition as you have worded it. An implication of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[1473,1125,1464,1475],"class_list":["post-1905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-pluralistic-proposition-theory","tag-sentence","tag-truth-bearers","tag-truth-bearers-metaphysics-philosophy","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1905"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1905\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1912,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1905\/revisions\/1912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}