There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Liar paradox
"The truth value of the statement cannot be evaluated because the statement refers to the truth value of itself." - I am not sure I understand this, or agree with would probably be a better statement. I think, hope, we are not talking about the impossibility to test all Cretans because there are too many or something like that, because there is a finite number of Cretans and we can just start testing one by one with a clearly defined meaning of the word "liar" as someone who always tells a lie. And, as soon as we find one that is telling the truth we can conclude that the statement is a lie. And, I would actually argue that the statement is, clearly, a lie, since the negation of All is not exclusively None, but also Some. Some is also ¬All. Therefore, by concluding that Epimenides told a lie we are not creating a contradiction, our conclusion is logically valid.
Unless the problem is the definition of the word liar as someone who sometimes tells the truth which, I would agree, seems impossible to test.-- Pedja (speak up, contributions) 14:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The most succinct example I have seen is "This statement is false". Can't remember what book it was from, but it used the terms Knights, Knaves and Normals. 176.35.126.242 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Cretan statement[edit]
... is not a paradox: there is no overt 'all the time' component. Anna Livia (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)