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 16 17 Last

True statements

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 135
Total Posts: 7406

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:28 PM:	#61
Schlitz wrote: If this isn't an unambiguous endorsement of a correspondence theory of truth, I don't know what is. You don't? No, a good reply, Schlitz. I'll pull in some old critiques of correspondence later, just to see how they work. Let's set out the T-sentence, so we can check out all four parts: "the cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat. The biconditional IFF should be of little trouble. It is true only in those cases in which the statements on either side have the same truth value. The quotation "the cat is on the mat" is a reference to the quoted sentence, in this case the very same sentence that appears on the right of the equation. In such cases, as Davidson points out, it is possible to go out and take a look; is the cat on the mat? if so, then the right hand side is true; if not, then it is falls. But nothing here says that we have to find out if "the cat is on the mat" corresponds to some state of affairs. we just have to decide if it is true or not, by whatever means we like. It is interesting that you change the T-sentence so that it reads "P" is true whenever P is true. I don't have much of a problem with that; all you are doing, so far as I can see, is assuring that the "P" on the right is used as an assertion; which was pretty much my point. I can't follow your last paragraph. It does not seem to be about what I wrote.
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: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 135
Total Posts: 7406

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:33 PM:	#62
NothingtoSay wrote: 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? I think you are mucking around with different senses of "true". I'm interested in true as opposed to falsity; you seem to be sliding between that and true as opposed to fake (painting, sculpture, and so on).
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: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 135
Total Posts: 7406

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:41 PM:	#63
yffer wrote: You can make all the assertions you want, but if your assertions consistently contradict consensus you'll probably end up in a psychiatric ward of your local hospital, or worse. The consensus can also make whatever assertions it wants, but if it contradicts what is the case, what is the case will win every time.
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

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 106
Total Posts: 2825

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:46 PM:	#64
I'm not the only "Will explain in a post!" Anyways; haven't read everybody elese's info, but my short answer is: Truth is dependant on context.
Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 1577

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:49 PM:	#65
Assuming of course there is an absolute "case" to be had. If no one has the knowledge of the true "case", then how can we assume there is a "case" at all? Doesn't that mean truth is just a progress? That things are deemed true if they are practical enough to get us somewhere "further"? The world of science is a perfect example of this. There is no absolute truth in science, just a bunch of practical theoretical models formulated in such a way that's useful to us. The third law of thermodynamics is the best example of this, an assumption that at absolute zero the entropy is non existent, an assumption that is SO useful that it is said to be a LAW. Yet we could never experimentally verify this, for we could never experimentally recreate absolute zero, it's simply an useful model to work with. Useful to whom you ask? To further the progress of truth seeking of course. This seeking has no end goal, it's always going to be a work in progress. It's simply a manifestation of the fundamental drive of "seeking" that we humans possess.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 135
Total Posts: 7406

Posted 04/15/09 - 03:52 PM:	#66
If we are going to talk about correspondence, we ought mention the slingshot argument. THis is supposed by many to be the giant killer here. the Stanford Encyclopedia provides what I think is the clearest version, so I will set it out in tote: stanford wrote: 9.1 The Big Fact Inspired by an allegedly similar argument of Frege's, Davidson (1969) argues that the correspondence theory is bankrupt because it cannot avoid the consequence that all true sentences correspond to the same fact: the Big Fact. The argument is based on two crucial assumptions: (i) Logically equivalent sentences can be substituted salva veritate in the context ‘the fact that...’; and (ii) If two singular terms denoting the same thing can be substituted for each other in a given sentence salva veritate, they can still be so substituted if that sentence is embedded within the context ‘the fact that...’. In the version below, the relevant singular terms will be the following: ‘(the x such that x=Diogenes & p)’ and ‘(the x such that x=Diogenes & q)’. Now, assume that a given sentence, s, corresponds to the fact that p; and assume that ‘p’ and ‘q’ are sentences with the same truth-value. We have: * s corresponds to the fact that p which, by (i), implies * s corresponds to the fact that (the x such that x=Diogenes & p) = (the x such that x=Diogenes), which, by (ii), implies * s corresponds to the fact that (the x such that x=Diogenes & q) = (the x such that x=Diogenes), which, by (i), implies * s corresponds to the fact that q. Since the only restriction on ‘q’ was that it have the same truth-value as ‘p’, it would follow that any sentence s that corresponds to any fact corresponds to every fact; so that all true sentences correspond to the same facts, thereby proving the emptiness of the correspondence theory—the conclusion of the argument is taken as tantamount to the conclusion that every true sentence corresponds to the totality of all the facts, i.e, the Big Fact, i.e., the world as a whole. This argument, which is a variation on the so-called “slingshot argument”, has been criticized repeatedly. Critics point to the two assumptions on which it relies, (i) and (ii), and maintain that it is far from obvious why a correspondence theorist should be tempted by either one of them. Opposition to assumption (ii) rests on the observation that the (alleged) singular terms used in the argument are definite description: their status as genuine singular terms is in doubt, and it is well-known that they behave rather differently than proper names for which assumption (ii) is probably valid Comments?
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

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 341

Posted 04/15/09 - 04:10 PM:	#67
Banno wrote: I think you are mucking around with different senses of "true". I'm interested in true as opposed to falsity; you seem to be sliding between that and true as opposed to fake (painting, sculpture, and so on). I don't think I meant fake. The question, "What makes a fake sculpture true?" comes to mind when I think about 'fake'. So you think there's a difference between true as opposed to falsity and true as opposed to fake? I wonder though, maybe it depends on what we're talking about--since apparently there is a relation between True-False and True-Fake, that relation being the True. Are there false paintings and/or fake statements?

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 106
Total Posts: 2825

Posted 04/15/09 - 04:13 PM:	#68
Banno: Comments? The argument for axiom?
Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/15/09 - 04:21 PM:	#69
I'm worried about the first implication. Giving a variable to Diogenes (D), it seems that the first implication is saying something like: 1.S corresponds to the fact that p 2.So, S corresponds to the fact that ( [E(x)(D(x) & p]) 3.and by implication, p. How are they getting from 1 to 2 here?

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 135
Total Posts: 7406

Posted 04/15/09 - 05:16 PM:	#70
treysuttle wrote: How are they getting from 1 to 2 here? By substituting the equivalence (the x such that x=Diogenes & p) = (the x such that x=Diogenes) for P, since (the x such that x=Diogenes & p) = (the x such that x=Diogenes) is logically equivalent to P.
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

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

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