PonderAtlas printable field sheet
The Liar Paradox field sheet
Compare an initial intuition with competing accounts of truth and language, then record the strongest objection and a revised position.
- Short route
- 20 minutes
- Deep route
- 50 minutes
- Revised
- 2026-08-24
20-minute route
- 2 min: Read the topic setup on the canonical guide.
- 3 min: Record an initial answer before discussion.
- 10 min: Compare two reasons and test one variation.
- 5 min: Write the strongest objection and a revised position.
50-minute extension
- 5 min: Silent reading and first position.
- 15 min: Small-group reason mapping.
- 15 min: Swap positions and defend the strongest rival.
- 10 min: Test a nearby case or changed context.
- 5 min: Final reflection and remaining uncertainty.
Prompt sequence
- 01
Where exactly does the reasoning break: in self-reference, in the truth predicate, or in classical logic?
- 02
Should a formal model of truth reproduce ordinary language, or discipline it?
- 03
If some sentences are neither true nor false, does that change what truth means elsewhere?
Position and process cues
- Tarskian hierarchy: A language cannot consistently contain its own truth predicate; truth is always defined one level up.
- Kripkean fixed points: Truth develops inductively; liar sentences end up ungrounded, neither true nor false.
- Dialetheism: The liar is both true and false, and paraconsistent logic contains the damage.
- Revision theory: Truth is a circular concept whose logic is captured by revision sequences of hypotheses.
- Restrictionist diagnosis: Something else is defective: unrestricted self-reference, or the equivalence between 'true' and assertible.