Introduction to Philosophy & Logic (1999)
Lecture 30: Truth and Falsity in Simple Statements

Transcript
================================================================================

That's the help me, you know, help me, where you're kind of dependent upon the other person, right? And education is more to a what? Equal. So one student said another student, let's go eat, huh? Let's go to movies, right? That's not a command. That's not a prayer, right? That's kind of between equals, right? Once you go to movies with me, the Christmas is kind of equal, right? But prayer is to say, help me, or give us this day our daily bread, right? Is that true or false? Give us this day our daily bread. If I was to say, I need my daily bread, then that's a statement that's true or false, right? When I say, what, give us this day our daily bread, I'm asking someone to do something for me. I'm asking the security, right? Or on the street corner, help me, help me, you know, you're in a kind of superior position to me, right? I want a handout or something, right? Command, if I say, shut the door, that's kind of addressed to an inferior way, right? Okay? Once you do something, right? Notice, even if the door, if the door over there is closed, right? If I said, shut the door, and you say, well, it's already closed, right? If it is my word, shut the door, are they false? False. The fact that I've commanded you to shut the door might be a sign that I think the door is open, right? That's a positive draft, but here it is, it's bothering me, right? Okay? But shut the door is not strictly speaking true or false, is it? If I say the door is shut, and the door is not shut, the door is open, and those are statements that are either true or false, but shut the door is open, right? True or false. Go to hell, is that a command or what? If you go to hell, is that true or false? If I say, you should go to hell. That's true or false, right? But go to hell, that's the kind of command, it's going, right? Get lost. That's neither true or false, I'm lost, right? And she gets lost. That's neither true or false, right? Okay? I forgot to go a little bit to sentence, but sometimes I know students will confuse sentence and what statement, tend to kind of identify them, right, huh? So the first division of sentences was into what? Aiming at knowledge and aiming at action? Yeah, that's right, or dividing them, yeah. And then these are subdivided, the ones that are named at action by inferior, superior, or equal, right? And then give me a statement in question, right, huh? And the question is, doesn't signify the true or false? No, no, no. What is a man? What is a man? That's neither true nor false, right? But if I say man is a four-legged animal, that's either true or false, right? Or man is an animal with reason, that's either true or false, right? But what is a man? What are the parts of God, huh? True or false. It's neither true nor false. But like if I say, you know, shut that door over there, you might gather that I'm mistaken about the door's situation, right? In fact, it is closed, right? So if I ask, what are the parts of God? You might say, well, God doesn't have any parts, right? You know, see, he's thinking that God has parts, and now he's asking, what are the parts of God, right? Soviets, you know, at the time of stone power, and they sent one of these cosmonauts up in the air, right? He spoke back to the earth, right? There's no God up here, he says. Well, you're thinking, you know, where is God, and what place is he, right? Well, God is not in any place, so the body is not in place, right? Okay. So if I ask, what place is God, you can say, well, that question perceives from a false understanding, right? That God is in some place, right? That's false. But what place is God? That's neither true nor false, right? Okay, so let's go back now to the second page here, right? Now we divided the simple statement, the statement period, into its composing parts, noun and verb, or subject and predated and copulant. Now he's going to divide it in the other way, which is a genus into itself. And that is the division of statement into affirmation and negation. Either you affirm something of another, or you deny it of another, right? I suppose we're like these, huh? It's not as bad as I'm on the board and I can't, as close as I can't do it, you know? So for me, I haven't recognized that, huh? Okay, so this is a division now of a genus into its species, and this is a division of a universal whole, therefore, into its parts. An universal whole is set of its parts, but not, what, put together from them, right? So an affirmative statement, an affirmation is an affirmative statement, it's a statement. Man is a stone, right? Man is not a stone, right? Man is an animal, man is not an animal, right? They're both statements. But a statement is not composed or put together from these two. A statement is put together from a noun and a verb, or from a subject and a predicate, and the copulant is there is not. Do you see the difference? You're looking puzzled there. Because of the use of the word subjective, yeah, I usually call them sometimes subject parts, yeah, because subject is something in which something is said, right? Subjective has all these crazy kind of things in contemporary modern thought, right? Subjective and objective, right? I don't know how they're thinking, so I call it subject parts, right? That's what I was thinking. Did you just like to talk about scripture there, and how do you translate the sensus literalis? Well, they translate that in English, literal sense, right? Now it seems to exclude the metaphorical one, but you read what Thomas says, the metaphorical sense is the sensus literalis. You say, the Lord is my rock. The sense of the letter is, that is, my foundation, so on, right? So, literal sense in English has a different meaning than the sensus literalis, it's more, more narrow, right? Opposed to the figurative sense, right? The sense of the letter, you say, the Lord is my rock, it's not that God is a rock. It's said metaphorically, and therefore the meaning is not the meaning of the word, but the meaning intended by the speaker. So he calls God a rock, not because God is a rock, but because, like a rock, he is firm. Or, which of these two divisions should one give first? The division of a composed whole into its parts, or, if it's also universal, into its subject parts, right? In the text here, we've, of course, divided statement into noun and verb before we divided the affirmation into nation, right? But is there a reason to divide it in this way, before in that way? Does this, in some way, contribute to understanding that? The affirmation is... Joining the subject and the part. Yeah. Especially this other division we made, which is subject and predicate and then the copula, right? The copula can be saying is or is not, right? And you see kind of the basis of this division, right? So, is that always true or usually true that you should divide a whole into its composing parts before its subject parts? You see, the reason of knowledge is considering something universal, right? So, it's both a composed whole and a what? A universal whole, right? You take the example, you talk about the atom, right? You divide the atom into the periodic table, right? You have 92 or, again, I guess, 100, right? You got things like hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and so on, okay? You divide the atom into, let's say, the nucleus and the electronic shell, let's say, right? You divide it into a proton, neutron, electron, something like this, right? But would you divide it in these ways first or into hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and so on? What did you do first? It's a terrible part. Yeah. You need to know that to do the table. Yeah, in order to understand, so the division, right? The first one seems to help you to understand it. Take us, another example, take the sonnet, right? The sonnet, what are the two species of sonnet? Well, they call them the English sonnet and the Italian sonnet, right? Or they call this the Shakespearean sonnet and the Tarkian, because they're not a key thing. Now, sonnet is a whole in what? Fourteen, what? Lines. This is a division of the sonnet into what? It's composing parts. Now, notice the difference between the two. The universal whole is set of its parts, but not put together from it. The composed whole is put together from its parts, so the sonnet is put together from fourteen lines, but sonnet is not set of those parts. How about you have fourteen sonnets, right? So which of these divisions should you make first? I'm not sure what makes the division of the second one. Because of the English sonnet, right? It's, you've got three, what, quatrains with the ultimate rhyming, completed by a, what, a rhyming couple, right? In the Italian sonnet, you have what they call an octet, right? It is answered by a, what, sestet or sextet, right? It would be eight lines, and it's about six lines, right? Well, at least you have three, you know, quatrains that are repeated by a rhyming couple, right? So the way to understand what's going on down here, right, you have to kind of have a line, if you have fourteen lines, then the way those fourteen lines are ordered or structured, right? You see that? So, it's nothing to think about, but it seems, at least in these examples here, right, which I took them from quite different areas, that it makes some sense, right? To divide something that is both a composed whole and a universal whole, right? Into what? It's composing parts before it's, what, subject parts, right? You divide in both ways, right? To divide in government, to divide government first into monarchy and oligarchy and democracy and so on, but it's divided into legislative and executive and tradition. It's divided into first. And then you start to see, right, what these different lines are, right? Parliament 28, right? Quite different from Parliament today, right? King was the dominant thing there, right, in 1088. Parliament... Every right had a lead right, and then married the divorce woman, right? And so I wanted to marry the divorce woman, right? And then wrote this throne, right? Part of this is actually going on with it. Instead, the syllogism, we see something like that, huh? It's always divided, huh? Composing parts, so I have to understand first, and then understand the subject parts, huh? Now, in the next part, we talk about a property of the statement, of a simple statement. What is the property here of the statement? Every simple statement has an opposite statement, with some subject and predicate, right? Yeah. So instead of is, you just put is not, or vice versa, right? So man is a stone, has the opposite statement. Man is not a stone, right? Man is not an animal, has the opposite statement. Man is an animal, okay? So it's a property, you might say, something that follows upon every statement, right? That it has a what? Opposite statement, okay? And later on, we'll see these opposite statements, in terms of truth and falsely, right? And what the opposition can be, huh? Okay? Now, now we're coming to the really interesting stuff. We're going to talk about what true and false means in the simple statement, and then later on, we'll be talking about what it means in the case of the compound statements, right? Okay? Now, what does true and false mean in the simple statement, right? Recall that the simple statement is either affirmative or negative, right? So it's either God is a copy of some form of it to be without the negative, or has a negative with it, right? So it's either saying that something is or is not, right? Or was or was not, right? Okay? So what does truth and falsity mean in the case of the simple statement? Truth means saying what is, that it is. Truth in the statements called the statement means simply that it says what is, in things, that is to say, is, right? Or it says what is not, hyphen that what is not, in things, is not. So if you say, for example, that breakfast is standing now, you're speaking what? Truly. You're saying that what is, and my standing, is, right? So it might be false. Right, true. If you say that breakfast is what? Not sitting now, right? You're also speaking falsely. Truly. Okay. You're saying that what is not in things, namely my what? Sitting, is not, right? So that is what? True. True, right? Okay? And notice you could say that what's common to these two meanings here is that the mind is in what? Conformity, right? It's in agreement with things, right? This is the conformity of the mind to things, right? The mind is saying what is, is, and what is not, is not, right? Ah! Now, falsity in the statement, simple statement, means it says what is, and things, is not, right? Okay? Or it says what is not in things. Again, just take a very simple example here, right? Being that I'm standing now, right? If you say breakfast is not standing, when he is standing, your mind is speaking falsely, right? If you're saying that what is, namely my standing, is not. Likewise, breakfast is not sitting now, right? If you say that breakfast is, what, sitting, they're also false, right? If you're saying what is not in reality, namely my sitting, doesn't exist now, you're saying it is. That's right, right? So there's two ways of being what? False, right? Okay? Now, take the courtroom, right? In the courtroom, they have to swear to tell the, what, truth, right? I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Most people don't examine that phrase too carefully, but when you add the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you might see it at first sight, and all you're doing is emphasizing the fact you're going to tell the truth, right? But is that, in fact, all of those second and third phrases I do it? When I swear to tell the truth, and then I add the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I'm making something explicit in the second and the third phrase, and not just reiterating I want to tell the truth. Indeed I will, indeed I will, definitely. What am I saying in regard to the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Why do you have those two phrases? What do you mean? Saying that you won't say the two kinds of falsity. Yeah, yeah. Now, to say the whole truth is opposed to which kind of falsity? What is, what is not. Yeah. In other words, if I say that what is, is not, I seem to be taking away and subtracting from the truth, right? And therefore not giving me the whole truth, right? And nothing but the truth is opposed to what? What is not, is, adding. Yeah. What seems to be adding, right? Now, Shakespeare has a similar phrase, but a little more clear phrase, right? And this is a couple of places where he does this. One is in King Lear, right? Where he says, all my reports are with the modest truth, nor more, nor clipped, but so. All my reports are with the modest truth, huh? Unless he calls it too modest, as if it's between two, like, extremes, right? One of which is more than the truth, and the other, instead of saying less, he says clipped, right? But it's so, right? Okay? Now, what am I saying more than the truth? What is not is. When I say that what is not is, I'm saying more than the truth. When I say, am I saying less than the truth? Yeah. Now, Falstaff was a great liar himself, right? Shakespeare had to realize how he puts statements in the mouths of people who exemplify the opposite of what they say, you know, like, like police. Grevity is the soul of it, and as Hamlet says, you know, the first one is that tedious old fool, right? So you're either wise or brief, right? And so likewise Falstaff, the great liar, says, if they say more or less than the truth, they are villains, right? And the sons of darkness. But they're using the phrase more or less than the what? Truth, right? Yeah, it's the same triple phrase in Othello, huh? Where he says, you're talking about soldier, right? You say more or less than the truth, you're not a soldier, right? Now, let me exemplify that with a nice courtroom example here, which is my barman example, right? Suppose I, as a bartender, was called upon to get testimony, right? Who was at the bar between 9 and 10 o'clock on Friday? And let's say that John and, what, Thomas were at the bar between 9 and 10, nobody else, right? Okay? Now, if I testify that John and Thomas, who are both the cousins, who are in trouble, and Paul were there between 9 and 10, right? I am what? Adding to the truth, right? But if I say, John was at the, what, bar between 9 and 10, and I leave out Thomas, just John. Just Thomas, I didn't get a question. Now I'm what? Subtracting from the truth, right? And notice, that's more concrete. Then more extracting, here you're saying that what was, right? You're saying that what was, or who was, right? And namely Thomas, was not, right? Okay? And here I'm saying that what was not, or who was not, okay? So here, I say this, when I fall in this way, or hyphen, what was not, was, I am what? But adding to the truth, saying more than the truth, when I say, just John was there, and I'm saying that what was, was not, in a sense, right? And I'm saying that Thomas is there, I am what? Subtracting. Saying less than the truth, right? Okay? Now, you go back to the court truth we see here. I swear to tell the truth. The truth is that John and Thomas are there. The whole truth, that's against saying, let's just, let's say, John was there. And nothing but the truth, as opposed to this kind of false testimony, right? So you don't realize that, you know? I've often talked about, you don't like to have a professor usually on your jury, right? Or somebody, you might have to, let's see, the other person's jury. But if I, you know, spelled out this phrase, math, they probably would have succeeded in the jury. I'm not even kidding. But you get along, you stop and think what this means, right? It is a very active phrase, in a sense, right? There's two ways that I could depart from the truthful testimony when I'm called upon to give it in the court, right? One could be said to be adding to the truth, saying more than the truth, right? And one could be said to be subtracting the truth, right? Sometimes you find, because that word more or less, right? They'll speak that truth is the equality of the mind with things, right? That doesn't mean a democratic sense that the mind is equal to everything, right? The mind sometimes talks about things that are, what? Greater than itself, like God, and sometimes about things that are less than itself, like the tree or something, right? But it means that the mind is saying either, what? More nor less than what is out there, right? I can also say truth is the agreement, then, of the mind with things, huh? It's the conformity of the mind with things. The equality is very concrete, just as referring to these two kinds of falsehood as more or less than the truth is very, what, concrete, right? Or saying, in one sense, you're adding it to the truth, right? In other case, you're subtracting from it, right? And it's as bad, in a sense, to add it to the truth as to, what, subtract it from it, huh? But in all those phrases, I gave you three ones that are from Shakespeare, where he speaks of more or less, or more or clipped, right? One from a fellow, and one from a fourth place, and the other one that's from a king there, yeah. Or this courtroom one, right? They're all signs that this is what truth and falsity is, right? Why do they have those two ways of being false? Say, more or less than the truth, right? Why do they have two ways to unexclude, right? A king protestable man, saying the whole truth and nothing but the truth, right? It's a sign of the truth that the false of the art, okay? Now, so Shakespeare speaks of modest truth. All my courts go with the modest truth. Nor more nor clipped but salt. This is said by what? Kemp there, King Lair, the old faithful servant of King Lair, right? Can't move. But, yeah, something in intellectual virtue, like you have in the moral virtues. The moral virtues are a mean between two extremes. A generosity is in between stinginess and extravagance, right? Okay? Or courage is in between a foolhardiness and cowardice, huh? Okay? In a sense, truth is in between two extremes, right? One of which is more than the truth and is less than the truth. But, as we define it, right? Okay? And you see this in the two mysteries of the Catholic faith, huh? Because the two main mysteries are, let's see, the Trinity and Incarnation. And in a way, they're just the reverse. Because in one case, you have the unity of nature and the multiplicity of persons. And in the other mystery, you have one person, but a multiplicity of natures, right? Okay, so take the Trinity first here. And there you have one nature and three persons, huh? Okay? And in the Incarnation, you have one person and two natures. Well, not only theoretically, but actually in history, you have both mistakes being made, right? Okay? So there are those who say that there are three natures as there are three, what? Persons, huh? Okay? So they give the Son a different nature than the Father, right? And the Holy Spirit, again, a third nature, right? And then you have those, you said, you know, that three, one and the same person, who is the Father and the Son, but insofar as he became man, he's called the Son, and so on. So lean enough, I say, I mean, there's only, as there's one nature, there's also what? One person. Okay? Notice, the one is saying more than the truth, and the other is saying what? Less than the truth, right? Okay? And obviously, the person who says there's three natures and three persons is saying more than the truth, right? Okay? He's saying that what is not, in the second and third nature, are! Okay? He's saying what is not, or to put it in the plural, what are not, right? What is not is. That's right. Okay. The person who says, as is one nature, so is also one person. He is subtracting from the truth, right? And he's saying that what is, or what are, I'm going to say, namely the three persons, what is, is not, right? Okay. So you have, in fact, you know, you've got Aries up here, right? The occupationes, they call them, right? Because he found his supper, right? He became man, died, and so on. Okay. You have, in fact, historically both of these, right? Now, over here you have, what will be the heir corresponding notes? Who is saying what is, not is? Oh, I see. Yeah, okay. Okay. So if you say there's two persons, as there are two natures, the story says this is a famous one of this, right? Okay. So he's saying that what is not, namely the second person, is the Christ, right? And the other one would be saying that as there's one person, there's one nature. So he's saying that what is, namely the two natures, is not, right? And then one nature is the amount of physites, right? So he can say more than the truth or less than the truth, right? The truth is a mean between two extremists in that sense. And notice, a sign that the truth here is modest, is that if this middle position here is the truth, then both of the extreme positions have a part of the truth, but neither one has the whole truth, right? So men are deceived when they see part of the truth and not the whole truth, right? And Petticoe, the great Greek philosopher, says, you know, men are, don't live very long, they're creatures of the day, and they see a part of life, and they boast of having seen the whole, right? But notice, if one of these extreme positions was true, then the other extreme position would have, what? No part of truth, right? And that's not very plausible, right? Because you have men thinking this, and there's no basis of it at all, right? So the one seizes upon the fact that there's one nature, and therefore there's one person. The other seizes upon the fact that there are three persons, and there are lots of two natures. And the similar one over here, right? Except it's the reverse, because here you have the unity of person and the multiplicity of nature, right? But it sees you've got one person, therefore you must have one nature. The other one sees you have two natures, which is true, therefore you must have two persons. And truth is in between, that's extremely simple. What does Shakespeare's quote again from there? All my reports go with the modest truth? Truth, yeah. Nor more. Nor more. Nor clipped, but so. Instead of saying less, he says clipped, right? Yeah. And notice that, you know, as I mentioned before, Shakespeare would say nor, nor, right? We'd say in English, neither more nor less, right? Neither more nor clipped, right? He says nor, nor. And you see the same here, or, or, in Shakespeare. But I mean, it's not just a good hymn, it's a change in language. I don't see what God is, and what is is not, as you hear, theology, and perhaps how they do it. Aaron by excess, Aaron by defect. Yeah. Other ways it's done. Yeah. But it's kind of a custom of those making mistakes to both extremes, right? Yeah. Everything's necessary, everything is contingent. Now, we'll see later on, when you compare this with the other kinds of truth and falsity, why this is the basic sense of truth or falsity, huh? Because you're talking about the agreement of the mind with things, right? You might want to know the way things are, huh? Now, towards the end of this section here, next to the last paragraph, it can be seen from induction and the above definitions of true and false. That if an affirmative statement is true, the opposite negative statement, which in the case of the other affirms, must be what? False, right? And if a negative statement is true, the opposite affirmative statement, which affirms and the form negates, must be false. That, in a way, follows from the, what? Definitions, right? If I'm saying that what is, is, and that's true, right? And the man who says the negative statement opposed to that, he's saying what is, is not, and that fits the definition of what? False, yeah. And if what is not, is not, is true, and the man who says what is not, is, saying the opposite of that, and that's obviously what's written by false. False, okay? And we can also see from the definitions of true and false and above that the same statement cannot be both true and false, huh? It's saying what is, is, can't be saying what is, is not, huh? So it can't be true and false at the same time. And saying what is not, is not, it can't be saying what is, not, is. Now, the contradictory statements, huh? And I kind of like to spell this out here, right? When you speak of contradictory statements, you're talking about simple statements, but we just call it statements, period. Contradicting statements. No, it's the first thing we said about them in theory, simple statements, right? But secondly, we add that they have the same, what? Yeah, okay. And third, one is affirmative, and the other is negative, huh? Now, the chronic thing, right? And I like to spot out, there are codes such that both cannot be true, right? Both cannot be false. But one must be true, and the other must be false, right? Regardless of whether you know which is the true or which is the false, right? Okay? And you can say it's one just alone, that one must be true, the other must be false, right? And it's spelled out, right? Both cannot be true. Both cannot be false. But one must be true, and the other false. This is something you can know from the logical second act. It doesn't tell you which one is true or which one is false, right? But you know that one is true and one is false, right? So if I say President Bush is sitting now, President Bush is not sitting now. Two simple statements, right? Same subject, President Bush, right? Same predicate, sitting now, right? One affirmative, President Bush is sitting now. One negative, President Bush is not sitting now. Can both of those statements be true? One negative, President Bush is not sitting now. One negative, President Bush is not sitting now. One negative, President Bush is not sitting now. One negative, President Bush is not sitting now. Can both of them be false? One must be true and the other must be false. And which is the true and the false one? Well, we don't know, right? Okay. And notice the logic of the second act, from its analysis of what a statement is, right? What an affirmative statement is, what a negative statement is, what true and false is, and so on, right? It sees that those two statements, they're contradictions. One must be true and one must be false, but it doesn't tell you which is the true and which is the false one. Okay? Now, there are three ways, mainly, for a buyer we know which is the true and which is the false one, if we do know that, right? And one way is by the senses, right? Okay? So, Berkowitz is sitting, Berkowitz is not sitting, right? I like the statements, President Bush is sitting, President Bush is not sitting. But you're able to judge which is true and which is false. If Berkowitz is sitting, it's false. And Berkowitz is not sitting, it's true, right? By your, what? Senses, right? Okay? So you don't need logic, right, to use your senses, right? Okay? That's one way we know, right? But now, if I say no odd number is even, and some odd number is even, and these are contradictors, right? But which is true, which is false? No odd numbers. Now, if you know that by senses, no. Not in approximates, anyway, right? Because you can't see all odd numbers, all even numbers, and compare them, right? Then, but you know it by understanding what an odd number is, and what an even number is, right? The one is divisible in the three four parts, the other is not, right? They can't be the same, right? So you know it by understanding the parts. If I say no circle is a square, right? Do I know that by my senses? I might have started off, you know, by having to be drawing a more or less circle, a more or less square, right? But when I say that no circle is a square, I know that's to be true by understanding what a square and a circle is. That may require a, what? Definition, right? Notice, whether I know it by sensing or by definition, it pertains to something other than the logic of the second act. Because the senses are something other than the mind, the reason, right? And the definition pertains to the logic of the first act. And there's a third way we can know which of the two statements is true or false, besides sensing or defining, understanding what the parts mean. That's the third way. Yeah. So the logic of the second act tells us that contradictory statements cannot both be true, they cannot both be false. One must be true, the other must be false. But the logic of the second act doesn't tell us, it can give you a pair of contradictory statements, which is true or false, right? You have to either know that by the senses or by understanding what the parts are, which may require a definition, or, yes, by the reasoning, right? Notice that in a way it follows the definition of true or false, right? If a statement is saying what is, is, right? If a statement is saying that something is, it's either saying that what is, is, and what is not is, right? And then the negative statement will be saying just the opposite, right? So one of them will have to be true, and the other will have to be false, right? If the affirmative statement is saying what is, is, the negative statement is saying what is, is not, and therefore it's false. If the affirmative statement is saying what is, not, is, the negative statement is saying what is, not, is not, and therefore it must be what? True, yeah. But is the affirmative statement saying what is, is, or what is, not is? Well, I don't know either about my senses. When I'm saying President Bush is sitting now, am I saying what is, is, or what is, not is? I don't know. See? Call on the phone and get an opinion on these. I have to believe that in the end, right? When I say this about you, or me, right, that I can see, right, man is an animal. Man is not an animal. I know enough about what a man is and what an animal to know that man is an animal, right? And therefore man is not an animal, it's false. Or a square is a quadrilateral, a square is not a quadrilateral, right? You might have to define square and quadrilateral, but by my understanding of what a square and quadrilateral, I know that it's true that square is a quadrilateral. But now someone says the interior angles of a triangle equal to two right angles. I know what two right angles are, I know what a triangle is, I don't see that they have to go together. And then you have to what? Reason that out, right? So three ways, right? So don't let the logic of the second act do more than it can, but don't give it less credit than it has. In a sense, it boils down to the fact that in a way, you're saying that since every statement has its contradictory statement, right, in a way, of all possible statements you can make, half are true and half are what? False, right? Because every statement has only one contradictory, right? And one must be true that it must be false. So of all possible statements, that doesn't mean now that the number of statements that people make, that half of the statements people make in the world are what? And half are true. Probably more than half are false, right? You see? That's because they don't, you know, say both, right? So if I say two plus two is four, and you say two plus two is five, and you say it's six, and you say it's seven, and you say it's eight, there can be more false statements actually made the true ones, right? If two plus two is four, two plus two is not four, two plus two is five, two plus two is not five, two plus two is six, two plus two is not six, you always get the contradictories, right? Then we'll have exactly like half of them true and half of them false, right? But as a matter of fact, you know, you say, there's more mistakes than there are true statements that actually made. So I mean, Thades will say water is the beginning of all things, and then Eximenes will say air is the beginning of all things, Heratitis will say fire is the beginning of all things, and the poets say mother earth is the beginning of all things, right? Well, if one of those statements is correct, the other three are what? False, yes, there's more false statements than true, right? But if one person said mother earth is the beginning of all things, and someone else said mother earth is not the beginning of all things, one guy says water is the beginning of all things, and someone says water is not the beginning of all things, then you'd have exactly half and half, right? You know, and you get a true false exam, which I don't do, but kids like to guess sometimes, you know, 50-50 chance. One time I get a little bit of true or false in one of my exams, but I announced before it, and I said, now, if you leave it blank, you get a point off. If you get it wrong, you get two points off. So, it's a little bit of a guess, right? But I said, this is on purely sarcastic grounds, right? One, for not knowing the answer, and two, another point off, thinking you know, you don't know. I think I found out that if a guy lifted the ball of plenty, he would have got the highest bar. A lot of people, you know, they get very confused in their thinking because we use words and they get very