Truth claim or Truth value
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Is there a difference between "truth claim" and "truth value". For example in the Genetic Fallacy it says
"Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises." Would it be the same to say "Basing the truth value of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises"? That way we wouldn't repeat the word claim .
Comments on Question
Answers
1Hi, Kostas!
No, I am afraid that "truth value" would not make more sense. This is because arguments do not have any truth value. An argument may be valid or invalid, sound or unsound, fallacious or not fallacious, good or bad, and the like. An argument is never true or false. It does make sense to me to say that an argument has a "truth claim", however. I personally have not applied that term to arguments before, but it could simply be a reference to the argument's conclusion, which is the proposition the arguer claims to be true. Read in this way, your quote about the Genetic Fallacy may be read as "Basing the conclusion of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises." This makes sense as an interpretation of "truth claim", because arguments do have conclusions, so I am fine with the terminology of "truth claim". Using "truth value" instead would not make sense because arguments do not have a truth value.
Thank you, Kostas.
From, Kaiden
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Yes, that does make more sense.
Truth value is more like the state of being true/false.
A claim is simply a statement professing a fact that can be ruled true or false.