Could anyone give me feedback on the below part of the latest version of a blog post that I'm working on? This part argues that any claim, X, and the claim X is true are distinct claims. Do you find the argument convincing? If not, which steps do you think are problematic, and why?
---
Compare these two claims:
1) It’s raining.
2) The claim It’s raining is true.
2 can seem to be simply a different wording of 1, and therefore to be the same claim. However, 1 and 2 are actually distinct claims that merely imply each other.
If two sentences are just different wordings of the same claim, then, by definition, their content will be the same. And if the content of two sentences is the same, then, by definition, neither sentence will refer to something that the other doesn’t.
But whereas 1 simply refers to the current weather, 2 refers to a claim about the current weather – 1 – and to the concept of truth, and thereby also to the relationship between the referenced claim and reality. Hence 1 and 2 are distinct claims.
2 can be slightly reworded as:
The claim It’s raining is a true claim.
And it should now be more apparent that 1 and 2 are distinct claims that merely imply each other. That is, if it’s raining then the claim It’s raining is a true claim, and vice versa.
Therefore 2 is merely implicitly claiming 1.
2 can seem to be just a different wording of 1 because 1 follows so obviously from 2 that we can fail to notice the very basic logical step separating them.
---