He does provide a definition of truth in The Semantic Conception of Truth:

Hence we arrive at a definition of truth and falsehood simply by saying that a sentence is true if it is satisfied by all objects, and false otherwise. — Michael

I think he eventually admitted that it's not a definition. Since Frege, the standard view is that truth can't be defined. It's too primitive.

Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to. — Christoffer

It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow our body of knowledge.

and the disquoted part is a truth maker.
— Tate

Not so fast. The sentence in the second part is a truth maker? Or it picks out a truth maker? — bongo fury

Yes. :razz: My point was that you need to look for how an author is using the t-sentence rule. Use varies.

Seems to me the problem stems from treating propositions as individuals.
— Banno

Why is that problematic?
— Tate

How is it clear? Is such an individual: truth-bearing sentence, truth-making event, or something in between, or (as so often carelessly insinuated) all at once. — bongo fury

Again, look to use. Propositions are usually the content of uttered sentences, but nothing stops people from using "proposition" to mean pizza.

Tarski offers this example:

The sentence "snow is white" is true if, and only if, snow is white.
— Michael

Quite. "Sentence" is fine. Drop "proposition". If not why not? — bongo fury

Tarski doesn't deal in propositions. It's just sentences from two different languages, one that has a truth predicate and one that doesn't. It's not a definition of truth.

q ≔ the proposition that p
— Michael
is the same as
"p" is true ↔ p
And if so, how, and if not, why? — Banno

If you're interpreting the t-sentence rule as a rendering of correspondence theory, then yes, the quoted part is a truth bearer, probably a proposition, and the disquoted part is a truth maker.

It just depends on how you want to read it.

Seems to me the problem stems from treating propositions as individuals. — Banno

Why is that problematic?

For Tarski, both the quoted and disquoted portions are sentences. The issue of utterances and propositions doesn't come up.

The T-schema is used in other ways, though. In redundancy, we're imagining someone making an assertion, so uttering a sentence. Whether we want to also say they're expressing a proposition by uttering a sentence isn't relevant to the point.

The T-schema has also been used as a rendering of correspondence theory. It just depends on how we want to read it. I gather you're leaning toward correspondence theory.

Radical interpretation, per the SEP:

"So, for example, when the speaker with whom we are engaged uses a certain sequence of sounds repeatedly in the presence of what we believe to be a rabbit, we can, as a preliminary hypothesis, interpret those sounds as utterances about rabbits or about some particular rabbit. Once we have arrived at a preliminary assignment of meanings for a significant body of utterances, we can test our assignments against further linguistic behaviour on the part of the speaker,".

This is about utterances, yes, but we haven't yet arrived at issues of truth. For that we move on to sentences.

Radical interpretation does not deal in utterances? — Banno

I don't think so. Sentences. Tarski used sentences.

You're using your own definition, then.

And, it is very common for THC to lead to faulty predictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to mention munchies and long drawn out philosophical discussions.

will go with Davidson and opt for utterance — Banno

My impression was that he used sentences, not utterances. An utterance is the actual sounds or marks used in communication. A sentence is a formal thing. Any number of utterances can convey the same sentence.

Why then do we value warrant ? — Pie

Good question. Think about people with OCD who have to recheck the same fact over and over. Something has gone wrong with the process of obtaining knowledge. The confidence one is supposed to get from justification isn't sticking.

I actually have a touch of that, and it's a strength in some situations. I recheck things others wouldn't, and every now and then discover problems others miss. They're too confident.

Confidence does speed things up, though. If you're running through the jungle trying to escape a saber toothed tiger, you need to react quickly to the justifications you're receiving.

I don't know, you're probably right. If you're justified, you may be more likely to be right.

I would expect you to be a knowledge externalist, though.

One of the things I've recently realized is the way this kind of information could confuse the global public. I could see a backlash developing against climate science, which would be unfair. Scientists always go on what they know and understand at the time. This doesn't cause problems in astrophysics or biology, but when you have an intensely publicized and even politicized science like climatology, it's another story.

There have already been articles about climate scientists encountering resistance to a free exchange of ideas. Imagine that the thermohaline slows down even more than it has. Imagine scientists trying to explain that we're headed toward an event at least like the Little Ice Age, and possibly like the Younger Dryas, which would be devastating to the human population of the earth.

Instead of packing up and moving to Greenland, people would be returning to our original home: Africa, specifically, the Sahara.

You know the meaning of P if you know when it's true.
— Tate

If you mean if you know what would make it true, then that seems (tentatively) right. — Pie

Pretty much.

Important for what?
— Tate

It seems philosophers can only manage to make sure their beliefs are warranted, justified. — Pie

You may be warranted to believe P, but that doesn't say anything about the probability of P being true.

From here: the ocean heat conveyor is presently slowing down. Scientists aren't prepared yet to say it's about to stop, but they're watching it closely.

If it did stop, it's possible that reglaciation could begin. We're at the right point in orbital forcing for another glacial period to take hold, which would soon drop the pCO2 in the atmosphere by cooling the oceans.

Just food for thought. If you want to discuss further, or get access to articles that are behind paywalls, let me know.

you want to say meaning is found in truth conditions, yes.
— Tate

Go on.

The essay explores that theme, tries to give it its due. I'm still making up my mind.

I think maybe warranted beliefs are what's important. I'm not sure truth plays much of a role. But I'm willing to be corrected. — Pie

I think the truth conditions idea is meant to be a work around for the failure of correspondence. You know the meaning of P if you know when it's true.

I think maybe warranted beliefs are what's important — Pie

Important for what?

As you recall, the CLIMBER-2 model uses insolation minima as the primary driver of ice sheet nucleation. As one of its creators asked: 'What else would cause it?'

There are several articles out now that have called this assumption into question. For one: insolation is at a minimum now and there's no reglaciation starting. Another is that the geological record doesn't back up this assumption.

So what else could be causing reglaciation if not insolation minima?

A lot of articles are pointing to this:

"Understanding long-term history of North Atlantic intermediate to deep water circulation is important for assessing of the role of the thermohaline circulation (THC) in global climate change. Today, North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) ventilates more than half of the volume of the deep oceans, affecting the physical and chemical properties of deep water globally. A growing body of geological and geochemical evidence demonstrates that at certain times in the past, the production of NADW, and with it the climate of the circum-Atlantic, changed at rates and with magnitudes that are of societal relevance. During the most recent glaciation, large reorganizations in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean and the Nordic Seas mirrored variations in air temperature over Greenland, suggesting that ocean circulation was tightly linked to North Atlantic climate over both glacial-interglacial and shorter timescales". Here

Models have previously left out consideration of slowing or shutdown of the thermohaline circuit. Since a number of scientists are now considering the possibility that this has been the real trigger for reglaciation since we entered the 100,000 year cycle, I imagine we'll be seeing those models soon.

Actually, I don't think the circulation requires a heat differential at all — Metaphysician Undercover

The thermohaline circulation does. It was in the link.

Is truth important ? — Pie

If you want to say meaning is found in truth conditions, yes.

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.". --Camus

Did someone post that already? I didn't look.

I touched on this earlier: climate models are not crystal balls. They're based on a few assumptions, some best guesses, and a lot of data.

Computers just enhance our ability to make predictions from what we know now.

at least another 2000 years before we really notice — Benkei

Could be. Or it could be next year. We don't have a crystal ball.

When's the next ice age expected again? — Benkei

If you glance at my thread, I posted a paper that says we may have already passed a trigger point for reglaciation. It's the one that says the Anthropocene started about 6000 years ago.

Next up will be a proposed solution to the 100,000 year problem, which was not addressed in any long range model up to now. It suggests that shutdown of the thermohaline circulation has been triggering reglaciation, not just a minima of insolation in the Northern Hemisphere. Since the thermohaline is slowing now, this means reglaciation is in the cards.

Hey, you asked. :grin:

No need to be testy. Just to be clear, there are no climatologists who speak with the kind of confidence you display.

It's 100% certain it won't happen naturally anytime before the climate crisis of global warming displaces and kills millions. — Benkei

Source?

The whole concept of "oceanic heat conveyor", is equally vague, and overly generalized — Metaphysician Undercover

That's just one way to refer to that particular set of currents. It's also called the thermohaline circulation.

What is at issue, if you are talking about a potential trigger point, is minute peculiarities, and changes to how the oceans convey heat — Metaphysician Undercover

The circulation requires a heat differential between surface and bottom water in the north Atlantic. As that area cools due to polar ice sheet melting, the differential is minimized. Scientists are presently keeping a close eye on it because the ocean currents are slowing.

New ice age for us? That's unlikely. — ssu

It's possible. I don't know the probability. I don't think anyone does.

Long range climate modeling has been going on for a couple of decades. It's now made easier by increased computing capabilities and knowledge about the factors involved in reglaciation, but unknowns still abound. Any model starts with some basic assumptions and data from the climate of the past, then variables like pCO2 can be tweaked to give projections.

A model known as CLIMBER-2 was created in 2005. It assumes that reglaciation is triggered by a minima in summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere.

This model predicts an unusually long interglacial even without an increase in pCO2 forcing. With a 5000 Gton increase in CO2, the climate comes out of the glacial/interglacial cycle completely for at least 500,000 years.

One possible answer as to why the model is predicting such a long interglacial (50,000 y) even with baseline pCO2 might be that the so-called Anthropocene didn't start in the 1800s. It might have started with human agriculture as long as 6000 years ago. Here.

For example, if the warming stops the Gulf Stream, the climate in my country will transform more to be like the climate of Alaska. :sad: — ssu

Or potentially like this:

:up:

They are everything they accused him of. — NOS4A2

They're a little more graceful.

don't claim to speak for Witt, but I am indeed pointing away from the ghost theory toward a linguistic theory, to how selves actually function, looking for the meaning of 'I' in its use by the tribe. — Pie

I see.

I see. The subject, as Schopenhauer uses the term, is not a ghost in the skull. I've been assuming Witt's meaning is similar to Schopenhauer's.

Show me where I deny the self, etc. — Pie

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood.

It can be argued that Descartes was well-motivated in his time. Such motivations are no longer felt, so the ideas as expressed today become mere psychological curiosities. — Jamal

I don't think Descartes advocated solipsism, did he?

There's a theory that once we came out of primarily Milankovitch forcing, the 40,000 year cycle, to an orbital forcing cycle of 100,000 years, shutdown of this oceanic heat conveyor became the trigger for reglaciation.

This means the Northern Hemisphere summer insolation minimum isn't the main trigger, it just lowers the threshold. We're in that low threshold period now, and the ocean currents are slowing down due to global warming.

This means the forecast could be worse than just global warming. We could be headed for a period of extreme volatility.

Yes!

It looks like this:

I have a point of view in the way that a bachelor is unmarried. This is how our ( public ) concepts work. — Pie

The problem I see is that no one in particular is asserting this, so I have no context for interpretation.

How can there be such a thing as intention (not to mention intension) if there's no individual who thinks, feels, wants, questions, gets grumpy, etc.?

I'm sure you can google it. — Banno

Google scholar, yes. Regular Google is useless. Nature is also good.

Point being, this image says little about the antarctic. Overall, temperatures in Antarctica are increasing well above the global mean. — Banno

It's kind of hard to judge from that picture. Some of the cold spots appear to be off the coast, which would make me think the ocean is colder in those spots due to melting glaciers, except why would glaciers be melting in the winter?

Do you have a source that says that overall temps in Antarctica are warmer? I'm not contesting the point. I've just been hoovering up good sources lately.

And why are the southern oceans generally cooler? That's weird.

It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)? — Banno

It's colder there now than it was in 1970 (in the Antarctic winter).