• Nzomigni
    27
    Here is my idea : A statement is truth-apt if and only if it is verifiable by a method agreed upon by the group of persons seeking to verify it.
    Statement that aren't truth-apt are matter of communication or narrative.
    This isnt question-begging nor self-reffuting. This is only a maxim one can accept or not.
    This idea has originated upon from my reading of neo-pragmatism, pragmatism, and on semantic irealism ( An theory of Michel Dummet ).
    For example, Xfesfsfsefesf is rgdhfxdrhrx is a kind of statement that isnt probably truth-apt if we accept the maxim.
    The apple infront of me is red is a statement that could be verified through the method of "empirical common-sense".
    If every person seeking to verify it agree that it is red, it is indeed red.
    There could be a "empirical scientific method", a "rethorical method", "mathematical method" etc ...
    Ideally, the method must be clear, non-arbitrary in its own framework. We should be able to easily see the result of the method. The method should ideally yield coherent results.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.