Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A claim is a substantive statement about a thing, such as an idea, event, individual, or belief. It's truth or falsity is open to debate. It's truth or falsity is open to debate. Arguments or beliefs may be offered in support, and criticisms and challenges of affirming contentions may be offered in rebuttal.
An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that the law ought to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of ignoratio elenchi .
A truth claim is an assertion held to be true in a religious belief system; however, it does not follow that the assertion can be proven true. For example, a truth claim in Judaism is that only one God exists, while other religions are polytheistic. Conflicting truth claims between different religions can be a cause of religious conflict.
[10] [18] Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at the party was a gentile"). [19] In formal logic and mathematics, the negation of a proposition can be proven using procedures such as modus tollens and reductio ad ...
Statements of value (normative or prescriptive statements), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology. This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter.
An example of the above is that of the concepts "finite parts" and "wholes"; they cannot be defined without reference to each other and thus with some amount of circularity, but we can make the self-evident statement that "the whole is greater than any of its parts", and thus establish a meaning particular to the two concepts.
Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine in philosophy which asserts that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable (can be confirmed through the senses) or a tautology (true by virtue of its own meaning or its own logical form).
[4] [5] And while Saul Kripke stipulates that analytic statements are always necessary and a priori, [6] Edward Zalta claims that there are examples in which analytic statements are not necessary. [7] Kripke uses the example of a meter stick to support the idea that some a priori truths are contingent. [8]