Re: virus: Re:PCR Three Axioms

Eva-Lise Carlstrom (
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:17:35 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, D.H.Rosdeitcher wrote:

> Tad wrote:
> >>>>>Is the statement "Any statement is either falsifiable or it's either a
> >>>>>'tautology' or an 'axiom' a falsifiable statement, an axiom, or a
> >>>>>tautology?
> >
> >>>>A falsifiable statement--it can get tested for being true or false..
> >
> >>>How?
> >
> >>You can make a nonsense statement, like "Rg 11 alik fon##" which is
> neither
> >>falsifiable nor a tautology or axiom.
> >"Rg 11 alik fon##" is not a "statement" (it's just a string of
> characters).
> How about, "Captain Crunch break rabbit loop"? .

Looks like we're in need of some clarification about what is and is not a
statement. Questions, commands, and interjections (such as "Great
Scott!") are not statements; that's why we have other terms for them.
There are nonsense strings which are not statements (such as both the
examples quoted above, one of which uses English words but not in a
coherent fashion), and there are also nonsense statements, utterances
which are grammatical but fail to make any sense and are thus
non-falsifiable (such as Noam Chomsky's classic example "Colorless green
ideas sleep furiously"). And there are statements which do hold meaning,
yet are non-falsifiable, such as "That's a really good movie"; statements
of opinion are dependent on internal standards, and thus can't be
coherently argued with without establishing some common bases for
judgement ("But you said the star sucked!"). Many, if not most, other
statements require further context or definitions than what is
provided within the statement itself, in order to determine truth

I hope this demonstrates to everyone's satisfaction that there are
utterances which are not statements, and that there are statements which
are not falsifiable except within a larger context, or not falsifiable at

Eva "De gustibus non est disputandum" Carlstrom