 David Sanford argues that while (vii) is sensible, (viii) “has things backward” (Sanford 1989, 176–7). He writes: “the statement about the battle, if true, is true because of the occurrence of the battle. The battle does not occur because of the truth of the statement” (ibid.) What he may mean is that the occurrence of the battle gives a reason why the statement is true, but it is not conversely the case that the truth of the statement provides any reason why the battle occurred. Of course, people sometimes do undertake actions just to make true what they had formerly said; so there will be unusual cases where the truth of a statement is a reason why an event occurred. But this seems an unlikely reading of the sea battle case.