Is there a distinction between any claim, X, and the claim 'X is true'?

[derrick.farnell]

Hi

Could anyone give me feedback on the below part of the latest version of a blog post that I'm working on? This part argues that any claim, X, and the claim X is true are distinct claims. Do you find the argument convincing? If not, which steps do you think are problematic?

---

Compare these two claims:

1) It’s raining.
2) The claim It’s raining is true.

2 can seem to be simply a different wording of 1, and therefore to be the same claim. However, 1 and 2 are actually distinct claims that merely imply each other.

If two sentences are just different wordings of the same claim, then, by definition, their content will be the same. And if the content of two sentences is the same, then, by definition, neither sentence will refer to something that the other doesn’t.

But whereas 1 simply refers to the current weather, 2 refers to a claim about the current weather – 1 – and to the concept of truth, and thereby also to the relationship between the referenced claim and reality. Hence 1 and 2 are distinct claims.

2 can be slightly reworded as:

The claim It’s raining is a true claim.

And it should now be more apparent that 1 and 2 are distinct claims that merely imply each other. That is, if it’s raining then the claim It’s raining is a true claim, and vice versa.

Therefore 2 is merely implicitly claiming 1.

2 can seem to be just a different wording of 1 because 1 follows so obviously from 2 that we can fail to notice the very basic logical step separating them.
---

[Skepdick]

...

There's no difference. This is basically the deflationists' account of truth.

The color of this sentence is red.
vs
It's true that the color of this sentence is red.

Adding the words "It's true that..." conveys no additional information. It's a redundant phrase.

Of course things get hairy when you start talking about semantic properties and linguistic relativity.

The color of this sentence is red.
vs
It's true that the color of this sentence is red.

[derrick.farnell]

Thanks – but which step, or steps, in my reasoning do you think is wrong?

[Skepdick]

Thanks – but which step, or steps, in my reasoning do you think is wrong?

Your reasoning is not wrong.

You are just mixing up grammar and semantics..

What is the difference between uttering the sentence "I claim that it's raining"; and "It's raining"?
Different grammatical structure does not imply different meaning/speech-act on your behalf.

Of course, it is entirely up to your intentions (as the person uttering the sentence) to decide whether you are using or mentioning any given phrase.

[Skepdick]

Thanks – but which step, or steps, in my reasoning do you think is wrong?

If one really wants to be a nitpicker one could construe the different expressions as accounting for the 1st vs 3rd person perspectives.

"It's raining" could be construed as a statement from 1st person perspective: What I am experiencing is the rain.
"I claim that it's raining" could be construed as a statement from from 3rd person perspective: What I am experiencing is the act of claiming that it's raining.

Naturally, you can use such subtleties to draw other people's attention to the rain; or to the cognitive process of observing and reporting on the rain.

[Skepdick]

Last brainfart on this...

Is there a distinction between any claim, X, and the claim 'X is true'?

One could similarly ask: Is there a distinction between 2+2=4; 2+2=4 is true; and "2+2=4 is true is true? You can go at this ad infinitum.

true-all-the-way-down.png (35.99 KiB) Viewed 489 times

It is conventional that propositional statements express only true claims (which is why asserting that a true claim is true is reduntant); while remaining silent about falsehoods. e.g we are not allowed to say "2+2=5".

But we are allowed to say "2+2=5 is false" because "2+2=5 is false" is true.

tft.png (33.45 KiB) Viewed 489 times

[derrick.farnell]

Thanks for all of these points Skepdick! I need to have a think...

[Iwannaplato]

Compare these two claims:
1) It’s raining.
2) The claim It’s raining is true.

You've called them both claims. To me in that context - that these are both claims - there's no difference.
If you'd said 'compare these two sentences',
in much communication there could be a difference.
Sentence 1 could be an observation. A reaction to sense impressions. An expression of what one (thinks one) is perceiving.
Sentence 2 in the same situation (a person staring out a window, say) seems much stronger to me. I have evaluated the epistemology of my earlier statement or 'his statement' and it is true.

If I say to my wife: it's raining. And she goes to the window and says 'No, it's not.' I double check and see she's right. I would find it very odd if she said I made a false claim. I observed poorly. I was fooled by seeds on the breeze. I rushed to a conclusion. I need better glasses. I was thinking out loud without much focus. Yes, we could consider those all weakness in the epistemological processes leading to my claim. But I don't really think it's necessarily a claim, though it reflects my temporary belief/guess/reaction.

If I say, the claim X is true, well then I think it's a valid assessment that I made a false claim if it wasn't raining.

This is all fussy and probably not the context of what you're after.

Further I am not saying that an observation can't be a claim, they aren't mutually exclusive. But if I think of those sentences coming up IRL and not in a philosophy forum they're not the same for me. Call them both claims and post them here, well, then the differences disappear for me.

[derrick.farnell]

Thanks – I follow what you're saying. I'm going to have a think about how I phrase my argument.

[Impenitent]

the rain, unlike truth, has a location

-Imp

[duszek]

Both sentences are not specific and precise enough.

That´s why you all assume typical situations and take them for granted. And argue from them.

A person during a therapeutic or esoteric session might say with closed eyes: It´s raining.
Then we would assume it is raining in their imagination.

And then someone during the same session could say "The claim that it´s raining is true."
Or could say perhaps, trying to be more precise: "I assume that it is raining in this person´s mind. So what the person says is true, but up to a point, because only imagined."

I wonder: If I claim anything at all, does it imply that it is true (according to me) ?

One could also say:

I claim that it is raining, although I know that it isn´t.

Difference between claiming and knowing.