Talk:Slingshot argument

[Untitled]

Another fine example of User:Jon Awbrey 's craft, this article desperately needs simplification. Banno 11:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Peirce

I've removed a large block of exegesis on Peirce.[1] To give you an indication of why, consider the first sentence:

The diversity of conclusions reached by a diversity of thinkers on this score is partly due to the diversity of their jumping off points, logically speaking, in other words, the variety of assumptions, not always fully expressed and critiqued at the outset, from which they set out.

Which I think means that people reach different conclusions because they start with different assumptions. (It really is a work of art - placing diversity into the first clause three times! brilliant!)

Of course, if you think any of this is worth re-inserting, please do so - but preferably after a bit of re-writing. Banno 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

from intro

Removed from the intro:

True sentences can be thought of as standing for the truth value True. Assuming bivalence for logical values, the slingshot argument has the additional consequence that all false sentences stand for the same thing, in a corresponding manner referred to as the truth value False. In various formulations of the slingshot argument, the terms denote, designate, or refer to may be used instead of the term stand for. In light of these variations, the thrust, range, and impact of the slingshot may vary widely with the theory of reference that is held to be in force in a particular field of application.

Some of this might be helpful, with some re-wording. Banno 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An argument for simplicity and clarity

I'm afraid this article failed to impart any information to me at all. Shouldn't an encyclopedia enable an ordinary person to get a fair idea of what something is about ? That would tend to suggest a good, clear simple practical example of the argument, its conclusion and scope of valid application. I suspect if that is not possible without writing it in obscure greek symbology, then the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in a work for general consumption ! As it is, I can't even tell if it is a valid way of proving something to be true, or if it should be classed as a fallacy !

Maybe I'm just being thick ? Can it be summarised as 'There is only one reality', or is there more to it ? Is that useful ? Does anyone seriously disagree ? The quote above suggests that 'there is only one unreality' - I seriously doubt that - I am pretty sure that there are an infinite number of unrealities, maybe more !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I understood 'slingshot argument' better before I read this article !

I came here from Fact - that actually told me more:

Some versions of the Correspondence theory of truth hold that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact. This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value true. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth".

Correspondence theory of truth is quite a useful link for this page, too.

So the whole of reality can be regarded as a single fact, albeit one of infinite complexity. That does not mean that "there is only one fact" - rather that all other facts are contained within the single compound fact of reality. Nowhere does it say "There can be only one" (Yes, I am a Highlander ! ) The existence of a fact does not mean that all other statements are false.

In computing terms, you are trying to compress all the information in the universe into a single bit of storage. Good luck !

I still don't see how the slingshot argument can be applied.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea-aah... what?

Could someone write an article on this that actually explains it? rowley (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Notations not defined or introduced

The notation pi(a,b) in the "derivation" of S from T (yes I understand it's not a proper derivation but that is not my point) is not defined (and that is my point). Same holds for phi(a) and psi(b), but these can be guessed from Assumption 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.134.66.110 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)