I 21
Facts/GeachVsRoss: even if we assume that when "p" and "q" stand for true propositions, and such sentences as "the fact that p" have any entities called "facts" as their correspondence, even then there is no entity corresponding to the "fact that not p"!
>
Proposition, >
Sentence, >
Nonexistence.
Geach: the opposite of a fact is not itself a fact.
GeachVsRoss: this is anachronistic in that he attributes "facts" to Aristotle at all. "ta pragmata" cannot be translated as "facts", although it is often translated in this way. But the present context does not even contain any word for facts.
I 21
Facts/Geach: facts spread across Europe like syphilis at the end of the 19th century, especially in the field of journalism.
I 22
In a logic textbook by Wisdom it says: "in this book we will use facts approximately as they are used in the 'Strand Magazine'".
Geach: the use of the term "facts" is always a sign that things are not yet properly analyzed logically.
Their construction always provides a pair of assertions: Example
(7) Smith was surprised that Brown's wife had left him. This splits into two allegations:
(8) Smith was surprised to hear that Brown's wife had left him.
(9) Brown's wife left him.
(s) 1. From what or whom does he know, 2. (still necessary: whether it was also "a fact").
Geach: this appeals only to assertion formulas and does not contribute to analyzing a sentence of "the fact" that it contains as a conjunction.
For there would be one (7) corresponding sentence in the form of a conjunction:
(10) Smith heard with surprise that Brown's wife had left him and Brown's wife had left him.
then that is the assertion of
(11) If it is not the case that Smith was surprised, then Smith had a tacit agreement with her lover.
but that would turn out to be equivalent to:
(12) If it is not the case that both (Smith heard with surprise that Brown's wife had left him) and (Brown's wife had left him), then Smith had a tacit agreement with her lover.
But that is blatantly wrong.
See also >
Facts/Chalmers (positive and negative facts).
I 21ff
Facts/Geach: A wrong attempt was made to reduce hypothetical statements to categorical statements - e.g. the fact of the thunder now and the fact of the lightning after.
I 259
Conjunction/Sentence/Frege: "p u q" is a phrase that is different from "p" and "q" individually - Mill: ditto: otherwise "a group of horses" would be "a kind of horse". - But not: e.g. "Jim is convinced and his wife is unfaithful".
Solution: "the fact that ..." is always to split as a pair of statements.
>
Conjunction, >
Statement.
