Editing Liar paradox (section)

===Saul Kripke===
[[Saul Kripke]] argued that whether a sentence is paradoxical or not can depend upon contingent facts.<ref name=Kripke.1975/>{{rp|6}} If the only thing Smith says about Jones is

{{block indent |A majority of what Jones says about me is false.}}

and Jones says only these three things about Smith:

{{block indent |Smith is a big spender.}}
{{block indent |Smith is soft on crime.}}
{{block indent |Everything Smith says about me is true.}}

If Smith really is a big spender but is ''not'' soft on crime, then both Smith's remark about Jones and Jones's last remark about Smith are paradoxical.

Kripke proposes a solution in the following manner. If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded". If not, that statement is "ungrounded". Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value. Liar statements and liar-like statements are ungrounded, and therefore have no truth value.