# [General]is it o.k. if I say these have the same meaning?

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### sykim99

##### Junior Member
It is no truer than the flat earth.
It is not as true as the flat earth.

#### bhaisahab

##### Moderator
Staff member
It is no truer than the flat earth.
It is not as true as the flat earth.

No, the first means that "it" has no more truth to it than "the flat earth" has, they are equal in that respect. The second means that "it" is not as true as "the flat earth" is.

#### sykim99

##### Junior Member
No, the first means that "it" has no more truth to it than "the flat earth" has, they are equal in that respect. The second means that "it" is not as true as "the flat earth" is.

thanks but still confused. could you give me a more specific explanation
It seems to me "it" in the both sentences is "not true " in the end.

#### albeit

##### Banned
thanks but still confused. could you give me a more specific explanation
It seems to me "it" in the both sentences is "not true " in the end.

Let's try this.

It is no truer than the flat earth. = "it" and the flat earth idea are equal in terms of being true.

It is not as true as the flat earth. = "it" is less true than the idea of a flat earth.

#### Raymott

##### VIP Member
bhai and albeit, you have fallen for a fallacy.

"no truer than" does NOT mean "as true as".
It could be i) as true as, ii) less true than, but not iii) truer than.

That is, they can both include "less true than".

2 = 3 is no truer than 3 = 3. (In fact it is less true; it is not equally true)
2 = 3 is less true than 3 = 3.
(So in this case, both propositions are true).

Danny di Vito is no taller than Tom Cruise. (True, but he is not equally as tall as Tom Cruise).

#### sykim99

##### Junior Member
There seems to be a different idea even between English native speakers.
So I write a full passage for a better understanding.

many people believe they will be free of their anger if they express it, and that their tears will release their pain. This belief derives from a nineteenth century understanding of emotions, and it is no truer than the flat earth.

I understand the belief is wrong as the flat earth is wrong in the context, so "it is no truer than the flat earth" could be replaced with "it is not as true as the flat earth without any change of its meaning

Am I wrong?????

#### Raymott

##### VIP Member
There seems to be a different idea even between English native speakers.
So I write a full passage for a better understanding.

many people believe they will be free of their anger if they express it, and that their tears will release their pain. This belief derives from a nineteenth century understanding of emotions, and it is no truer than the flat earth.

I understand the belief is wrong as the flat earth is wrong in the context, so "it is no truer than the flat earth" could be replaced with "it is not as true as the flat earth without any change of its meaning

Am I wrong?????
Yes, you are wrong. There are two issues. One is logical, the other is linguistic.
The logic:
The passage is using the comparison like this:
1. The flat earth theory is False.
2. That expressing pain will relieve the pain is no truer than 1.
3. Since 1. is False, then 2. is False.

The linguistics:
However, you see that it is necessary to assume 1. It's not actually stated in the paragraph, but it is implied that the flat earth theory is False (absolutely false).
But a general use of the term "X is no truer than Y" does not automatically imply that Y is False. If you assume that Y has a value of False, then yes, it means they are equally true, i.e. not True.

You can't phrase it as "it is not as true as the flat earth" because logically, an entity cannot be less false than something that is presented as being False, which the flat earth seems to be here.
Whether you use a True/False dichotomy or a spectrum with Fully True (ie True) at one end and False at the other, nothing can lower in the spectrum than something which is absolutely False.

The reason that "Danny di Vito is no taller than Tom Cruise" cannot be rephrased as "Danny di Vito is equally as tall as Tom Cruise" is that 'tall' does not fall on the end of a spectrum or as one pole of a dichotomy. It's relative. You can be taller than something that is 'tall', but you can't be falser (or less true) than something that is False.
You can also say that "Danny di Vito is not as tall as Tom Cruise", but you cannot infer that from "Danny di Vito is no taller than Tom Cruise".

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.