[FOM] consistency and completeness in natural language

[Dean Buckner]

I would still like to undestand how the variables in Torkel's sentences are
meant to be read.  Half of what he writes is of this form

    asserting G and denying G
    refusing to assert G and refusing to deny G
    G is true

which seem to require substituting not a sentence, but the name of a
sentence, giving for example

    asserting "2 + 2 = 4" and denying "2 + 2 = 4"
    refusing to assert "2 + 2 = 4" and refusing to deny "2 + 2 = 4"
    "2 + 2 = 4" is true

This presumes that "assert" is being used, not wholly incorrectly, as
"utters" or "says".  The other half is of this form:

    If S is consistent then G
    if G then G is true

which does not tolerate the same substitution for "G".  For example

    If S is consistent then "2 + 2 = 4"
    if "2 + 2 = 4" then "2 + 2 = 4" is true

Which make little sense unless we read the inverted commas as "scare
quotes".  But then we have to read them as scare quotes sometimes, as
name-forming symbols at others.  Would Torkel let us know which is which?
As I argued before, this makes a tremendous difference to the whole
argument.  My view, and also I believe Hartley's, is that the word "that" is
an operator having equal but opposite effect to the operator "is true".

For a walk round the subject of the correct use of quotation marks, I
include some references below.

Dean



Goldstein, L. 'Quotation of Types and Other Types of Quotation', Analysis
44/2 (1984), pp. 1-6.
Buckner, D. 'Goldstein on Quotation' Analysis1984, 44.4
Goldstein, L. 'The Paradox of the Liar - A Case of Mistaken Identity',
Analysis 45.1 (1985), pp. 9-13.
van Brakel, J. 'Buckner quoting Goldstein and Davidson on Quotation', 1985
45.2
Goldstein, L. 'The Title of This Paper is "Quotation"', Analysis 45.3
(1985), pp.137-140.
Buckner, D. 'Reply to van Brakel' 1985 45.4
Goldstein, L. 'Epimenides and Curry', Analysis 46/3 (1986), pp.117-121.
Buckner, D. & Smith, P. 'Quotation and the Liar Paradox'
Moore, A.W. 'How Significant is the Use/Mention Distinction', 1986 46.4