A question that is presented to
students in a variety of courses but most notably in courses with names like
Philosphical Logic,
Logic For Philosophers,
Logic For Non Mathematicians etc. etc.
I never remember what the point is that the lecturers try to get across, but the question can be used to break down almost any logic argument into a pointless rabble about the meaning of truth. It seems that whenever a debate about logic goes on for longer than 10 minutes, it gets round to the discussion of the definition of Truth, this question comes up, and I become bored with the whole situation.
But let me explain the meaning of the question:
Is the king of France bald? is problematic, because, to those of you who don't watch the news, the king of France has few hairs, which are usually hidden under a hat, making it difficult to see whether he is in fact bald. Just kidding!
There is no king of France, so the question of his baldness is problematic. Can you sincerely answer yes or no to that question? And neither answer can be refuted, as the problem lies in the question and not the answer. Neither answer can be proved, nor disproved.
Oh, there we have it again. I've become bored with the whole situation.