True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last

True statements

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 04/15/09 - 12:45 AM:	#41
Banno wrote: What is it for a statement to be true? 'Those with elbows have arms.' is a true statement.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 04/15/09 - 12:47 AM:	#42
Cuthbert wrote: . ******* To make an assertion is to present a statement as being true. So to say that truth is just what we present statements as having, when we assert them, is to define 'assertion', but it does not establish the redundancy of the concept of truth. This is backwards. Statements are what we usual use to make assertions, but not always. When we use statements to make assertions, we say they are true. Not vice versa.
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: 6301

Posted 04/15/09 - 12:48 AM:	#43
Caldwell wrote: 'Those with elbows have arms.' is a true statement. As is "I have two hands".
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

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:13 AM:	#44
Banno wrote: Some detail on my own vote. First, T-sentences. The sentence "the cat is on the mat" will be true just in those cases in which the cat is on the mat. Nothing too profound here, I hope. If this isn't an unambiguous endorsement of a correspondence theory of truth, I don't know what is. And appealing to T-sentences isn't a very good strategy for arguing _against_ a correspondence theory, since Tarski himself writes in "The Semantic Conception of Truth" that convention T is a formalization of a correspondence theory. And he's right about that. Banno wrote: Putting this more general, "P" is true if and only if P Note that the "P" on the left is mentioned, and the one on the right is used. Notice that the "is true" does not change the truth value of the original statement. Curious, that. This is somewhat confused. Of course "is true" doesn't change the truth-value of the original statement. It's part of the original statement! A T-sentence has this form: A iff B. A stands for some sentence " 'p' is true " from a metalanguage ML that takes whatever language the sentences that can replace B as an object, and B stands for some sentence in the object language L. The sentence of ML, ' "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white. ' says that 'Snow is white is true' is true whenever 'Snow is white' is true. Furthermore, forming a complex sentence by joining two interpreted sentences with a truth-functional connective doesn't change the truth-values of the two interpreted sentences. Banno wrote: As if it had no significance whatsoever. as if "it is true that the cat is on the mat" were exactly the same as "the cat is on the mat". When one asserts that it is true that the cat is on the mat, one does no more than in asserting that the cat is on the mat. The "is true" is redundant. Except that "it is true that the cat is on the mat" is somewhat more adamant. Hence, my vote. And here you've abandoned T-sentences. Even if " 'Snow is white' is true " does mean the same as "It is true that snow is white," and it is not obvious that this is so, it doesn't follow that "It is true that snow is white" means the same as " 'Snow is white' is true iff snow is white. " In fact it's false that " 'Snow is white is true iff snow is white " means the same as "It is true that snow is white." You take the synonymy of "It is true that..." sentences and T-sentences for granted in your analysis, and the two forms aren't in general synonymous. It isn't clear that there are two instances of these forms of sentence that are synonymous. Finally, to address an issue that's poking around in the thread, in your implicit appeal to synonymy, you're putting analyticity to use.

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 04/15/09 - 05:34 AM:	#45
Banno wrote: Say something interesting, and I will respond. My thoughts that the questions What is the Truth? and What does it take to make a statement true? would set us on different, though related, paths--that What does it take to make a statement true? would only lead us to find what it takes to make a statement true, and will not lead us to find what it takes to make a painting or a sculpture, or a movie or an idea, true. That I think it would be safer to ask What is Truth? Do you agree?

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 04/15/09 - 06:12 AM:	#46
I tend to view truth as a predicate applied to propositions (not paintings, sculptures, movies, or ideas) and am inclined to adopt the "minimal correspondence theory" advocated by Hugo Anthony Meynell. In Redirecting Philosophy (1998), he defines it thus: (a) "P" is true if and only if P. (b) In typical instances at least, one does not make P to be the case by affirming "P"; in other words, P is the case prior to and independently of anyone's statement to that effect. (c) One tends to get at the truth about any matter to the degree that one follows through the conscious process of examining the relevant data (attentive experience), envisaging possible explanations for it (intelligent understanding), and evaluating which is most likely (reasonable judgment).
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 04/15/09 - 06:38 AM:	#47
J. Random Hacker wrote: That's changing conventions. That doesn't change the truth value under the old convention. If the convention doesn't exist then the truth doesn't exist, it doesn't become false. So true statements depend on convention, facts, and time, amongst other things? And apparently they can't be broken; they cease to exist but they can't be falsified, even when convention folds?

nomadx
Undergraduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:09 AM:	#48
There are many truths, but no 'truth'. Truth is 'truth' when enough of the right type of people say it is truth. Historically truths change, the value of truth depends on the episteme it is embedded and the rules, rationalities, and sensibilities which regulate this episteme. In other words the conditions for the possibility of X being true is dependent on the configuration of the episteme in which a truth statement originates. Tarski's theory of truth i.e. snow is white, if and only if, snow is white. Is a perfect example of a truth statement coming out of a particular language game i.e. analytical philosophy. What makes the truth 'snow is white, if and only if, snow is white' more true then other truth statements depends on the perceived currency or worth of the particular regime of truth it has come out of. aha I hear you say.. then your truth statement is equally a product of the continental language game that you come out of. You would be right.. the difference between my language game and yours is that my language game is reflexively aware that it produces a particular type of truth or non-truth. In a pithy way I can sum up my feelings on the matter. Definition: truth: an ideology
What is a box? Is the text in the box separate from the text outside the box? How is it linked? What is the border, the margin or frame? Is it inside or outside the box? And why do we talk of a box, say, rather than a square or oblong, a coffin or crypt? What are we trying to hide? Or what is hereby hiding? 'What is a box?' (The Truth in Painting: 229)

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 04/15/09 - 09:54 AM:	#49
nomadx wrote: There are many truths, but no 'truth'. Truth is 'truth' when enough of the right type of people say it is truth. Historically truths change, the value of truth depends on the episteme it is embedded and the rules, rationalities, and sensibilities which regulate this episteme. In other words the conditions for the possibility of X being true is dependent on the configuration of the episteme in which a truth statement originates. Tarski's theory of truth i.e. snow is white, if and only if, snow is white. Is a perfect example of a truth statement coming out of a particular language game i.e. analytical philosophy. What makes the truth 'snow is white, if and only if, snow is white' more true then other truth statements depends on the perceived currency or worth of the particular regime of truth it has come out of. aha I hear you say.. then your truth statement is equally a product of the continental language game that you come out of. You would be right.. the difference between my language game and yours is that my language game is reflexively aware that it produces a particular type of truth or non-truth. In a pithy way I can sum up my feelings on the matter. Definition: truth: an ideology This is a joke, right?

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 04/15/09 - 10:08 AM:	#50
Schlitz wrote: This is a joke, right? Do you disagree with the idea that what's taken as truth would depend on power's interests though?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last

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