True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Last

True statements

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/23/09 - 07:48 AM:	#281
ragus wrote: I was assuming that my statement "the cat is on the mat" would be understood by someone else as referencing my take on a state of affairs. In this sense the assumption of evidence being available is implicit. If I had said "the cat is on the mat and I have evidence to prove it" that would be slightly less implicit. That looks like an overly-complicated breakdown. All this mention of "referencing" and "states of affairs" when really there's just a cat on a mat. When I tell someone that the cat is on the mat I assume they'll understand what I mean, that's about all. And I mean that the cat is on the mat--I assert the whereabouts of said cat. I don't see how evidence is at all implicit. A perfectly reasonable response to my assertion about the cat might be "how do you know?". This question is asking for evidence since the questioner might expect some. But there are plenty of times when someone will assert something without any intent of offering evidence. I'm not really sure how you're thinking of evidence. Is it "evidence" when the person has seen the cat on the mat? I've answered the first point above. I don't agree that it is usually used as a tool of emphasis. Can you give me a context when "the cat is on the mat" is used to emphasise that the cat is on the mat and the truth of the cat being on the mat can be ignored? Like emphasis. I think greater analysis of the act of asserting is needed, and not truth. Saying "...is true" is like saying "...again and again". What is the difference between saying "it's true that the cat is on the mat" and "the cat is on the mat". How about "the cat really is on the mat" or "the cat actually is on the mat". The cat well and truly is on the mat, there's no doubt. Don't you agree? Consider the following dialogue: A. The cat is on the mat. B. Really? A. Yes, go and look for yourself. B goes and looks B. It's true! "B" could have just as easily come in and said "the cat is on the mat" instead of "It's true!". Our problem is that we look at this dialogue and try and evaluate the initial claim by "A" separately. We want to look at his claim and ask "what would it mean for it to be true?". In this dialogue all it meant was for "B" to find out that the cat was on the mat. And do not confuse this for a theory! As a side-note I do think there is perhaps a place for correspondence and coherence theories, but not as theories of truth.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 04/23/09 - 09:09 AM:	#282
sensabile. How about this : evidence is implicit because a perfectly reasonable response to my assertion about the cat might be "how do you know?" and any confirmation of the truth of the statement has to rely on evidence but it's not the case that someone has to seek out the evidence unless they doubt the truth of the statement. you wrote I'm not really sure how you're thinking of evidence. Is it "evidence" when the person has seen the cat on the mat? Yes . . and also if the cat has been felt it to be on the mat. Or if I said "the cat has been on the mat" and then smelt it to have been on the mat. Evidence of the senses. "B" could have just as easily come in and said "the cat is on the mat" instead of "It's true!". Consider the situation where B doesn't find the cat on the mat. B would say "the cat is not on the mat". There would be the implication that A's statement was false. And this would generate a response. But when B confirms A's statement there is the implicit agreement that A's statement was true and no more need be said. Asymmetry. Our problem is that we look at this dialogue and try and evaluate the initial claim by "A" separately. We want to look at his claim and ask "what would it mean for it to be true?". In this dialogue all it meant was for "B" to find out that the cat was on the mat. False. That's not all it meant. It also meant that B found A's statement to be true. How B delivers this to A is not an issue as long as A receives confirmation of the claim made. The bottom line is that if B agrees with A's statement then that's what it would mean for A to have made a true statement in your scenario. Incidently, I'm not proposing a theory of truth. I'm interested in understanding how truth statements are used.
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/23/09 - 11:10 AM:	#283
ragus wrote: Therefore, if pain-felt is an illusion so is the stick-seen. But to call the stick-seen (out of water, remember) an illusion is to contrast it with some other more accurate *seeing*-of-the-stick. Unless you can provide some other means of doing this then I think that pain-felt is as real as stick-seen. You're wavering back and forth ambiguously between seems and illusion. The stick seems bent even when it is bent. This "seems" only counts as an illusion when it doesn't correspond to the actual state of the stick.

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 04/23/09 - 12:39 PM:	#284
Random wrote You're wavering back and forth ambiguously between seems and illusion. I can't see how. There is no "seems" in the quote in #283. In any case "seems bent" is a casual way of talking about what we both agree is a visual illusion. The stick seems bent even when it is bent. The stick seems more bent if it's a bent stick. Is this what you're saying? It would still be an illusion. This "seems" only counts as an illusion when it doesn't correspond to the actual state of the stick. Let's drop "seems" and stick (!) with illusion. The bent-stick-illusion is generated by the discrepancy between the visual experience of the stick and the evidence from touch plus some ideas/experiments of how sticks interact with water and how light behaves in different media. Now can you address what I said in the quote in #283? Remember, there's no need to use the word "seems".
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/23/09 - 12:50 PM:	#285
ragus wrote: Now can you address what I said in the quote in #283? Remember, there's no need to use the word "seems". I did address it. I'll do it again and hopefully you'll accept it this time. If I see a desert oasis that doesn't exist, isn't that an illusion? So why can't I say I experience pain that doesn't exist and call it an illusion as well?

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 04/23/09 - 01:17 PM:	#286
Random wrote If I see a desert oasis that doesn't exist, isn't that an illusion? It may be. On the other hand it may be an hallucination. So why can't I say I experience pain that doesn't exist and call it an illusion as well? Oases exist. You happen to see one where there isn't one. How does the pain-experience match the conditions of the oasis-experience?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 04/23/09 - 03:21 PM:	#287
sensabile wrote: How is "evidence" implicit in the statement? Good point. It isn't. What is implicit is the assurance, the "take it from me, the cat is on the mat". (I just fed the lazy sod, but he is back there now...)
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 04/23/09 - 03:33 PM:	#288
sensabile wrote: As a side-note I do think there is perhaps a place for correspondence and coherence theories, but not as theories of truth. I agree. Are you going to cast a vote in the poll?
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 04/23/09 - 03:41 PM:	#289
ragus wrote: sensabile. How about this : evidence is implicit because a perfectly reasonable response to my assertion about the cat might be "how do you know?" But... If this where a characteristic of truth, it should apply to all true statements. It should be reasonable, for any true statement, to ask "how do you know?". But it is not reasonable to do so in a very large number of cases. THe one we have been discussing is "I have a pain in my foot"; but I would add "I have two hands", "I see the cat on the mat", "I love vegimite"- I'm sure you can discover your own. Evidence comes in to the question of how you know something, but as argued elsewhere, not every true belief need s to be justified.
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

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/23/09 - 06:50 PM:	#290
ragus wrote: It may be. On the other hand it may be an hallucination. What's the difference? ragus wrote: Oases exist. You happen to see one where there isn't one. How does the pain-experience match the conditions of the oasis-experience? Your objection is weak. I didn't have to use an oasis as the example. I could have used unicorns, for example. Would you then assert that unicorns exist?

Page: First 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Last

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