Talk:Falsity

Merge with Truth

 * Support &mdash; Appears to be a good idea at the moment. Right now this article gives short shrift to the logical and factual meanings, with a bulky list of ethical infractions, some of them borderline or outright specious, e.g. "prying into the correspondence of others", which would seem more antithetical to honour or trustworthiness than to truth. Of course, if the antonym section of Truth grows beyond a certain size it will be time to split it out again.


 * One example of factual falsity would be a musical string whose overtones do not ring true with the fundamental note. "Truth" in this case is physically impossible to attain, although most newly manufactured strings come close enough for all practical purposes. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the emancipation of dissonance, where no tone rings ever really rings true, and all music is falsity.HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There may be more to falsity than can fit into a truth article. But then, I was one of Alonzo Church's students, and I may have a "warped" perspective.  For example, "warped" would be better discussed under "falsity", than "truth".  I suggest asking the merge question at the "truth" talk page to get more opinions.HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

'Vonkwo gist'?
On 6 January 2019 at 13:33, the first line 'Falsity (from Latin falsitas) or falsehood is...' was changed to 'Falsity (from Latin falsitas) or vonkwo gist is...' - I've never heard of 'vonkwo gist' and can't find any other reputable reference to it online. Since it's survived a number of revisions, is there anything to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.8.204 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)