Infallible proclamations

by judechua

Let P be (Ph affords E)

Interrogate, question, problematize P.

{Is it true that P?}; {Is it true that (Ph affords E)?}

Let ?P be the problematization, the skeptical questioning, or the research question in relation to P.

How are ?P and P related? 

?P asks if P is True.  But if through the posing of the question, Ph and E are held up semiosically, then Ph does afford E. In which case, then P is true, even when one questions P.

I.e., ?P implies P.

Hence is infallably true, since even if questioned, P is proven, performatively, by ?P, to be true.

?P –> P

ergo, nec P.