Plato is standardly understood as explaining false belief (doxa) in terms of the assertion of a false statement (logos).
Its key claim is that talk of and quantification over worlds ought to be understood as literally false: it is only true within a "worlds fiction", which we make-believe because of its delivering useful results in the explanation of modal notions.
She was being punished for living in a false world, spongy and insulated from the reality around her. Liv is the pragmatic one, more rational than her cousin, but she understands as well as anyone the need to apportion blame.
If-then rules do not present much difficulty in classical sets: if the premise is true then the conclusion is true; if the premise is false then the conclusion is false (to be understood as the consequent not occurring or its action not executed).
Another possibility is to allow that religious claims are meaningful, but they are not true or false, because they should not be understood as assertions.
Anselm argued that that predictions are true or false and their truth can be understood as the correspondence to what will happen, although what will contingently happen is not known to human beings without supernatural help.
Thirdly, the actual false positive rate needs to be better understood, as it was not studied in the original paper.
(E)Tags may evoke a false sense of security, and their meaning needs to be understood as part of the overall energy control program.
Although "prizings" could be analogized to emotive attitudes, appraisals were understood as empirical statements whose claims about the value of an object could be confirmed as true or false based upon intersubjective experience and upon their future empirical consequences.
It is surely undeniable that utterances are at least sometimes intended to be understood as claims about things, properties, and relationships in the world, and as such are at least sometimes true or false.
