"Let others bend the breathing bronze to forms more fair..."

By your lights Redundancy is trivially true.

Correspondence doesn't give a flip about agreement. Redundancy says truth is about agreement...social signs.

Per Scott Soames, you're wrong, quote already provided. Perhaps two different perspectives both called Redundancy? Eh..maybe. I doubt it.

Yes. You're right. That was my shorthand for: redundancy says true signifies agreement. Do you disagree with that?

P is that it is raining.

"It is raining" indicates speaker believes P
"It is true that it is raining" says no more than "P"
"It is true that P" indicates the speaker believes P

What part do you disagree with? This is redundancy dude. What did you think it was?

If you say it's raining, one supposes your utterance signifies that you agree to P where P is that it is raining.

What else could your utterance show?

So when you, as a redundacist, say p is true, you're just signaling that you agree with p. That hardly captures the meaning of true

Social signification of agreement to p?

Now that's redundant.

Again: if you aren't a truth nihilist, you don't believe truth is agreement. Redundancy says it is.

Oh. What does it say about those unknown things and happenings?

Maybe we're talking about two different things... although I'm not sure how. How does your version handle unknown truths?

The non-truth-nihilist says that the truth of P has nothing to do with whether anybody agrees with P.

The truth nihilist says the truth of P is nothing other than that somebody agrees with P.

Ernest, you're tending to address a wide variety of issues (justification, knowledge, the limits of knowledge, etc.) as if it's all truth. Those things do indeed have something to do with truth. There's nothing in philosophy that isn't related in some way to truth. But it's important to make distinctions. If you want, you could start a thread asking about these distinctions.

Ok. Adios, dude.

We're going around in circles now.

Yes. Think about moral nihilsm. No change in language use is required.

Neither of those describes truth nihilism. Look at the section I quoted from Soames' book above. That's one form of truth nihilism.

It's called Redundancy.

Do you understand what truth nihilism is?

"The word true in these sentences may have the practical function of signaling to one's audience that one is agreeing with something that has already been said or conceding a point in advance that one expects to come up. However, it does not play any logical role, has no descriptive content of its own, and so does not contribute to the content of what is said.

"This view, referred to by Alfred Tarski as "the nihilistic approach to the theory of truth" is also known as redundancy theory of truth.""

That's from the truth skepticism chapter of Soames' Understanding Truth (not as easy to quote as the SEP).

Redundancy is truth skepticism. It's truth nihilism. It's behaviorism driven. It's bullshit.

It may be that it's been called deflationary. I said deflation, but not skepticism.

Nope. Redundancy is truth skepticism.

Sure, but is it always redundant? I don't think so, as we can easily imagine that there are unknown truths.

Deflation, but not truth skepticism (which is what redundancy is).

I don't know why it happens but it's violent and crazy. I work in a hospitals so I see the results of it from time to time.

Cool! Thanks guys!

Hi dude! Best wishes!

True. Humans don't do a lot of adaption, but bacteria do. They're adapting to our medicine.

So you're saying that medicine is part of the environment humans are adapted to?

US or global revenue? I mean...does Best buy have a store in Rome?

It's extremely important that we get this settled. Freakin Best buy.

Yes. The point is that Merck is one of the top 100 companies in the world. Best buy is not.

In the world or in the US?

In rapidly reproducing species (rats, for example) there is a greater chance of genetic change over a given period of time. But rats don't get a lot of medical care — Bitter Crank

This is true. Genetic drift is more significant in human evolution than adaptation. Merck is #93 in the world. Best Buy?

Animals, in general, didn't seem to be very good at resisting novel diseases prior to the invention of modern medicine. The plague (Yersinia pestis) wiped out 1/3 of the European population and it wiped out a lot of other populations elsewhere. Were people who lived before modern medicine better at resisting more familiar, less novel diseases? Maybe. Before modern sanitation people were regularly exposed to more bacteria and viruses. They may have been resistant to some frequently encountered pathogens found in food and water. But people definitely got sick from these common pathogens. — Bitter Crank

True. Modern medicine is much better at dealing with novel threats to life than nature. But does that success have a cost on the B-side? By saving lives, is medicine holding onto genetic stuff that Nature would have gotten rid of, thus making human populations dependent on Merck (which I believe is one the largest corporations in the world.. if not the largest) ?

Maybe the Shetlands sheep, evolved in the much colder, wetter north sea Islands got their harmful pathogens from the hotter, drier-evolved Churro sheep. — Bitter Crank

I doubt it. All sorts of bugs and fungi love humidity. That's why southwesterners can make houses out of mud and we southeasterners can't. Freakin' mold, termites, and bacteria. Make a structure out of concrete and the elements will have degraded it in 10 years.. trying to erode us all back into the sea.

What would you say truth is? — mew

Unanalyzable.

Doesn't it presuppose truth to say what truth is? — mew

Yes.

If this is so, is it bad? — mew

It might seem bad for someone who wants to support some ontological view by leveraging a definition of truth, but on closer examination, those people aren't really hurting anything, so no, it isn't bad.

Chair without a seat is better. You can just put a piece of cardboard on it. Maybe some duck tape.

During an asthma attack it's the ability to breathe.

"And so it is that the Transcendent is clothed in the terms of being, with shape and form on things that have neither, and numerous symbols are employed to convey the varied attributes of what is an imageless and supra-rational simplicity."

The Divine Names, Pseudo-Dionysius

I think you're right. I've developed a head cold.. need to come back to it when I can see straight. :)

Which is not what the universe is like. It's infinite — tom

Could be.

this immaterial existence must have some other means of gauging time. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. God's decision to move the universe is not a premise, it's the object of analysis. Does it make sense for God to move the universe?

Can't you ask essentially the same question about time? Anything that occurs (e.g. the construction of a house) could have occurred four years earlier (or later). But could everything that is occurring (and occurred, and will occur) in the whole universe occur four years earlier? Relative to what event would everything have occurred four years earlier? — Pierre-Normand

The possibility that time and space are limitless is confusing me. But is that a problem? Can the thought experiment just say that for every E, E happens 4 hours earlier? And not address whether time is finite or infinite?