True statements: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last

True statements

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 04/15/09 - 11:16 PM:	#101
So what does it mean for it to correspond with the facts? To say something that is true is to say of something that is the case, that it is the case, or of something that is not the case, that it is not the case. I think Heisenberg claimed that the more accurately we can measure position, the less accurately can we measure velocity, and vice versa. So it's a claim about what we can measure. If someone succeeds in measuring both position and velocity with ever-increasing accuracy, then Heisenberg was not speaking the truth. But so far there's every reason to think that he was.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 238

Posted 04/15/09 - 11:17 PM:	#102
I voted for the pragmatic conception of truth because I like it's inclusiveness, and also the fact that it is a little vague. William James wrote: True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. William James wrote: Our ideas must agree with realities, be such realities concrete or abstract. I guess I default to pragmatism because of problems with correpondence and coherence. Coherence has the obvious fault of allowing closed systems which are consistent but bear no relation to reality. I find this criticism of coherence somewhat shallow, as I doubt any coherentist would allow systems to be closed in such a way that they don't allow new 'facts' from experience to alter the system. As long as the coherentist maintains honest contact with the world which causes or part-causes his experiences I don't think there's too much of a problem. James makes this connection with the world explicit, though. I dislike the correspondence theory. This does not mean I think it is false. It might well be true. What I don't like is that it encourages the view that there are concrete facts which, when found, apprehended and studied, a sentence can be formed to describe the fact, and voila, we have a piece of truth which we can put on file for eternity. It's not holistic enough for me. It allows the fragmentation of reality, and as soon as we have done that, understanding is potentially lost in the gaps. James seems to appreciate the importance of understanding and contextualisation.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 04/15/09 - 11:47 PM:	#103
How do new facts from experience enter a system, if they are not already coherent with it and if the coherence of the system is the criterion of its truth? 'Facts from experience' and 'connection with the world'... is this perhaps correspondence by the back door?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 04/16/09 - 01:45 AM:	#104
treysuttle wrote: It's only when we imbue meaning to the word (i.e. restrict its domain of reference) that it refers to anything in particular. You seem to have the same sort of reservations as I do. The relation of "correspondence", on analysis, appears to be no more than reference. But by hiding this as a "relationship", it leaves itself open to the slingshot. The slingshot plays on naive ides of reference.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 04/16/09 - 01:55 AM:	#105
J. Random Hacker wrote: Why are propositions funny? Funny peculiar. Not statements, not facts. What are they, and why bother?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 238

Posted 04/16/09 - 04:36 AM:	#106
Cuthbert wrote: How do new facts from experience enter a system, if they are not already coherent with it and if the coherence of the system is the criterion of its truth? 'Facts from experience' and 'connection with the world'... is this perhaps correspondence by the back door? Yeah, probably. I'm not familiar enough with the arguments pro-coherence to know. Coherentists tend to be idealists and therefore might be more willing to deny an external reality that can correspond to their beliefs, perhaps. In any case, I prefer the emphasis to be on coherence rather than correspondence. If I had to choose between a set of coherent beliefs that had trouble with a few experienced facts, and a set of incoherent (or even simply fragmented) beliefs which corresponded well to experienced facts, I'd rather have the former. Not because it's necessarily more true, just easier to cope with. One likes one's mental contents to mesh nicely.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

Black Glory
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 10, 2009
Location: Michigan, USA

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 42

Posted 04/16/09 - 04:49 AM:	#107
A true statement is true when it is. Truth does not always have to be based on tangible facts or arguments. There is far more to truth than facts. It is something you know when you hear.
"Death is a mystery and burial is a secret." -Stephen King "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke ~~Black Glory~~

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/16/09 - 05:58 AM:	#108
You know what is funny is that this poll is fixed in its own Banno way. If you notice, all options purport to explain how we can define truth except for Banno's option, because Banno's option isn't a definition of truth, it is an observation of what an assertion does. His option is at least tautologically true, but it is not what the other options are supposed to be about. Asserting a statement is a performance and it is the same thing as someone saying something is true. That is perfectly fine. But obviously, saying something is true does not mean it really is true, because I can assert a lie as if it were true, or, I can be honest yet incorrect. That is fine too. In other words, imagine the statement referred to in the poll is a lie. Replace "a statement" with "a lie" in all the options. Banno's option is the only one that still is logically true.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 04/16/09 - 06:39 AM:	#109
That's a very nifty observation, StaticAge. I think the 'performance' account is a way of defining 'assertion', and, as you say, the definition holds whether one asserts a truth or an untruth. Banno replied to my objection, but I'm not sure I quite understood his reply.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 04/16/09 - 06:55 AM:	#110
Banno wrote: More good stuff. But the statement "snow is white" presumably means the same as 'white is the snow' and 'la neige est blanc', so I still don't see why we need to invoke propositions. Why not just stick to statements? The meaning of 'la neige est blanc' is "snow is white" not the proposition "snow is white". If A says 'snow is white' and B says 'la neige est blanc', have they made the same statement? In one sense, yes. They have said exactly the same thing. In another way, no. B made a statement in French and the A made one in English. So the notion of 'statement' is ambiguous between sentences and the propositions that sentences express.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.