True statements: Philosophy Forums

True statements

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6291

Posted 04/25/09 - 05:56 PM:	#321
But the question "What makes X true" is entirely answered by the T-sentence: "X" is true IFF X
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 04/25/09 - 05:59 PM:	#322
Banno wrote: But the question "What makes X true" is entirely answered by the T-sentence: "X" is true IFF X Sounds like correspondence to me.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6291

Posted 04/25/09 - 06:04 PM:	#323
No, it's redundancy. But the right hand side can be understood as being about the world, if you like. That's more about reference than correspondence.
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 04/25/09 - 06:10 PM:	#324
Banno wrote: No, it's redundancy. But the right hand side can be understood as being about the world, if you like. That's more about reference than correspondence. If you're saying "x is true because x is true" then that doesn't answer what makes x true.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6291

Posted 04/25/09 - 06:18 PM:	#325
No, I'm saying "X" is true if X, and if X, then "X" is true.
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

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 04/26/09 - 01:05 AM:	#326
Banno wrote I'm saying "X" is true if X, and if X, then "X" is true. A lot of the confusion in this thread is about the ambiguous use of the word "true" Because we assume that cats must either be on mats or not on mats we can make a claim that the cat is on the mat. So when we say "the cat is on the mat" we are constructing a true/false statement. The class of statements which are found to have a true outcome is a subset of all true/false statements. Equally, the class of statements which are found to have a false outcome is a subset of all true/false statements. The "cat is on the mat" is a true/false statement whose outcome can be found to be false if the cat is not on the mat. I'm saying "X" is true/false if (X or ~X) and if (X or ~X) then "X" is true/false. If this is not received with raised eyebrows I'll eat a Vegemite bap! . Edited by ragus on 04/26/09 - 07:08 AM
"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 04/26/09 - 10:38 AM:	#327
Banno wrote: No, I'm saying "X" is true if X, and if X, then "X" is true. So, "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat is on the mat. Yes, that's correspondence.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6291

Posted 04/26/09 - 02:49 PM:	#328
ragus wrote: If this is not received with raised eyebrows I'll eat a Vegemite bap! You will eat a Browning Automatic Pistol? You seem to be groping for the logical operator "NAND": ~(X&~X); but this is simply re-stating the law of excluded middle. I don't think you quite got to the conclusion of your argument...
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: 6291

Posted 04/26/09 - 02:56 PM:	#329
J. Random Hacker wrote: So, "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat is on the mat. Yes, that's correspondence. Too simplistic. T-Sentences are also part of coherence-type theories - See Davidson, for instance. All that is needed is that the right hand side be assented to. Correspondence says it should be assented to if it corresponds to the facts. Coherence says it should be assented to if it coheres with your other beliefs. Neither has ownership of T-sentences. But what both have in common is the redundancy of the predication of truth. Both say that "P" is true iff P, and therefor that nothing is added to the truth-value of the statement by appending "is true". That's redundancy.
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

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 319

Posted 04/26/09 - 03:03 PM:	#330
J. Random Hacker wrote: So, "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat is on the mat. Yes, that's correspondence. Actually this is deflationary. A formal correspondence thesis would be: "The cat is on the mat" is true iff it corresponds to the fact that the cat is on the mat.
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

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