more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
It is arguable whether two-valued truth tables give correct meanings for certain sentential operators, and even whether they constitute legitimate explanations of any possible sentential operators.
Gist of Idea
Truth-tables are dubious in some cases, and may be a bad way to explain connective meaning
Source
Michael Dummett (The Justification of Deduction [1973], p.294)
Book Ref
Dummett,Michael: 'Truth and Other Enigmas' [Duckworth 1978], p.294
A Reaction
See 'Many-valued logic' for examples of non-binary truth tables. Presumably logicians should aspire to make their semantics precise, as well as their syntax.
| 19195 | Truth tables give prior conditions for logic, but are outside the system, and not definitions [Tarski] |
| 9537 | Truth-tables are good for showing invalidity [Lemmon] |
| 9538 | A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, but this won't work for more complex logic [Lemmon] |
| 19060 | Truth-tables are dubious in some cases, and may be a bad way to explain connective meaning [Dummett] |
| 9724 | Until the 1960s the only semantics was truth-tables [Enderton] |
| 9738 | Each line of a truth table is a model [Fitting/Mendelsohn] |
| 13705 | Truth tables assume truth functionality, and are just pictures of truth functions [Sider] |
| 8713 | In classical/realist logic the connectives are defined by truth-tables [Friend] |
| 17764 | Boolean connectives are interpreted as functions on the set {1,0} [Walicki] |