240
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth? (view source)
Revision as of 17:21, April 5, 2007
, 17:21, April 5, 2007no edit summary
:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Object Lesson in Logic'''
The title of this debate reads:
If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?
Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.
If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X
We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.
So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)