|Negation, philosophy, logic: negation of a sentence. In logic, this is done by prefixing the negation symbol. Colloquially expressed by the word "not", which can be at different positions in the sentence. If the negation refers only to one sentence part, this must be made clear by the position, e.g. a predicate can be denied without negating the whole sentence. In logic, therefore, inner and outer negation is distinguished by the use of different symbols.|
Books on Amazon:
|Wright I, 276
Negation/Logic/Truth/Correctness/correct: If both truth and correctness are involved, there is a distinction between the
A) real, strict negation: it transforms every true or correct sentence into a false or incorrect one, another negation form:
B) Negation: it acts so that a true (or correct) sentence is constructed exactly when its argument does not reach any truth.
Negation/WrightVsBoghossian: the proposition (> nonfactualism) actually assumes that ""A" is true" should be complementary to the negation of A in the latter sense.
A perfectly reasonable counter-proposal, however, is that A should rather be complementary to the strict concept of the former negation.
Then, in the case that A is merely correct, the valuation of ""A" is true" is also correct and the application of the truth predicate will be generally conservative.
WrightVsVs: but there are problems at a different end now: the transition of (i) to (ii): the seemingly unassailable principle that only one sentence with a truth condition can be true would have the form of the conditional:
(II) "A" is true> "A" has a truth condition
And any conservative matrix for ""A" is true" endangers this principle in the case where A is not true but correct.
For then the conservative matrix ""a" is true" is evaluated as correct.
The consequent (II) that "A" has a truth condition (a fact that makes it true) will then probably be incorrect.
Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism Oxford 2007
A manual for Creating Atheists Charlottesville 2013