The meaning of "the water is cold" is the same on Earth and Twin Earth. We can see this by the fact that it would translate to the same sentences in other languages on both planets.
It just so happens that the worldly referent on Twin Earth is different — hypericin
And it seems that others (@Michael) have tried to make the same point to you. — Banno
"Snow is white" is not a fact, because facts are things in the world, and so while "snow is white" represents a fact, it is not a fact. — Banno
The thing on the right is a fact. — Banno
The thing represented by the sentence on the right is a fact.
It's clear that the thing on the right is not the name of a fact. — Banno
It is invented, or pretended, by people using their heads, but that doesn't locate it in the head. — bongo fury
Then where is it located? — hypericin
We may or may not pretend some corresponding bolt of energy passes between the symbol and object themselves.
But I'm treating meaning as synonymous with reference — bongo fury
Then how does he deal with sentences with no referent? "The cat in the hat" has meaning but no reference in the world. If the meaning of "The cat in the hat" is in your head, then mustn't all meaning be in the head?And recommends dropping it. — bongo fury
The point, lost, is that there seems to be nothing in common in the correspondence in each case. — Banno
Now if we look at what "one's honest opinion" means, and what "an accurate portrayal of what happened" means, we see a huge gap between these two. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Snow is white" is not a fact; it is a sentence. That snow is white is how things are, and so, it is a fact."Snow is white" is not a fact, because facts are things in the world, and so while "snow is white" represents a fact, it is not a fact.
— Banno — bongo fury
Why can't an individual be a fact? Isn't snow a thing in the world and, therefore, a fact of the world? — Luke
Why would an honest opinion about, say, what happened not be an accurate account of what happened? — Janus
Perhaps you could give an example showing how these might diverge. — Janus
Here's another example which might be easier for you to relate to. My wife and I sometimes will go out to an event. The next day we may discuss what happened at the event. Most times we have conflicting descriptions about various details. Since the two descriptions are both honest opinions, and they directly conflict one another, we can conclude that an honest opinion about what happened is not the same thing as an accurate description of what happened. — Metaphysician Undercover
But it's not black and white, and the point is that, insofar as one's attention and memory have reliably informed them of some aspects of the event, then an honest account of what is remembered will be an accurate, that is true, if not a complete, account. — Janus
But the main point is that we think that there is, even if it is not realizable, a true account of all events, and that if someone were to be able to give such an account it would necessarily also be an honest account. — Janus
"Snow is white" is not a fact; it is a sentence. That snow is white is how things are, and so, it is a fact.
Now the bit in the above sentence that I italicised is a string of letters, "snow is white", and it is not dissimilar to the bit I bolded.
I'm emphasising that the very same thing can be marks on a screen, a string of letters, a sentence and a fact.
Do we at least agree on this? — Banno
Its truth value can only be known if its meaning is first known. — RussellA
The point, lost, is that there seems to be nothing in common in the correspondence in each case.
— Banno
I don't see that; — Janus
When we talk about truth, we're referring to what people believe. — Sam26
the very same thing can be marks on a screen, a string of letters, a sentence and a fact. — Banno
It's clear that the thing on the right is not the name of a fact. — Banno
the very same thing can be [generally, not just exceptionally] marks on a screen, a string of letters, a sentence and a fact [the one it also represents]. — Banno
"Snow is white" is not a fact; it is a sentence. That snow is white is how things are, and so, it is a fact.
Now the bit in the above sentence that I italicised is a string of letters, "snow is white", and it is not dissimilar to the bit I bolded. — Banno
"Snow is white" is not a fact; it is a sentence. [But only the string without quotes is a sentence. The string with quotes is a name, facilitating talk about the sentence.] That snow is white is how things are, and so, it is a fact. [But only the fact represented by the string is how things are. The string is a sentence, talking about the fact.] — Banno
So meaning is both purely imaginary and not in the head, an imaginary lightning bolt from symbol to object — hypericin
... which is also the object? — hypericin
Then how does he deal with sentences with no referent? "The cat in the hat" has meaning but no reference in the world. — hypericin
When we talk about truth, we're referring to what people believe.
— Sam26
That surprises me coming from you.
What are we doing when we talk about belief if not referring to what people believe?
Seems to me that people can believe things that are not true and/or clearly and demonstrably false. Truth cannot be not true and/or demonstrably false. What people believe can. Thus, truth is not equivalent to what people believe. — creativesoul
When we talk about truth, we are talking about what people believe, or what they believe to be true. — Sam26
What are we doing when we talk about belief if not referring to what people believe(to be true)? — creativesoul
When we talk about truth, we are talking about what people believe, or what they believe to be true.
— Sam26
What are we doing when we talk about belief if not referring to what people believe(to be true)?
— creativesoul — creativesoul
Yep, why not? — bongo fury
Eh? — bongo fury
Do you deny and/or reject language less true/false belief? — creativesoul
I don't see how you can have true and false apart from propositional content... — Sam26
Okay. That's the conventional view when it comes to belief as propositional attitude. I agree that propositional content is necessarily linguistic, but I see no reason to agree that all our belief amounts to an attitude towards a proposition which represents that belief. — creativesoul
In this world before humans, if it is possible for a mouse to be behind a tree, and it is possible for a language less creature to believe that a mouse is behind a tree, then it is possible for a language less creature to have true belief(assuming the mouse is behind the tree) and/or false belief(assuming the mouse is not). — creativesoul
Saying that talk about true and false amounts to talk about what people believe, is not the same as saying that all belief "amounts to an attitude towards a proposition which represents that belief." — Sam26
As you know, I do believe, along with you, that beliefs in themselves, are not necessarily linguistic. For example, if we are referring to beliefs that dogs have, those beliefs are only true and false for us, not for them. They have no concepts of true and false, their beliefs are completely devoid of propositional content
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.