Right now, your cat, your mat. Is your cat on your mat right now? @Banno

Nuh. He's watching the birds out the window.

Nuh. He's watching the birds out the window. — Banno

So you see your cat not on your mat? So, your cat is on the mat if you see him on the mat?

So you see your cat not on your mat? — Hanover

Now he's in the bathroom.

So, your cat is on the mat if you see him on the mat? — Hanover

That's silly. Sometimes he is on the mat, and I'm not even in the house.

Make your point. If there is one.

IF that were so, no one would ever be mistaken; for to be mistaken is to beleive that such-and-such is true, when it is not. — Banno

People can still be mistaken, in fact people are often mistaken.

That's not right. As in, you've just sown that you do not understand the redundancy theory. — Banno

Perhaps you do not understand it, it does seem fairly simple.

"The cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat.

That's all there is to it. — Banno

But without a process of actually determining whether the cat is actually on the mat or not it is effectively meaningless.

People can still be mistaken, in fact people are often mistaken. — A Seagull

...yes, indeed; so we treat what you said as a reductio, and conclude that your "For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'" is wrong...

But without a process of actually determining whether the cat is actually on the mat or not it is effectively meaningless. — A Seagull

BUt you said it was redundant, so... yes, it is effectively meaningless.

...yes, indeed; so we treat what you said as a reductio, and conclude that your "For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'" is wrong... — Banno

Your claim that it is wrong is false.

For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'. — A Seagull

Slowly...

For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'. — A Seagull

IF that were so, no one would ever be mistaken; for to be mistaken is to beleive that such-and-such is true, when it is not. — Banno

People can still be mistaken, in fact people are often mistaken. — A Seagull

...yes, indeed; so we treat what you said as a reductio, and conclude that your "For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'" is wrong... — Banno

SO we agree that people make mistakes. A mistake is when someone believes something that is not true.

But you had claimed that, that a statement is true means that someone believes it. IF that were so, then it could never be the case that something were believed and yet not true.

Consider "Seagull believes that such-and-such"; According to what you said, this means that such-and-such is true. There could never be a case in which Seagul believes such-and-such, and yet such-and-such is not true.

The cat is on the mat.

"The cat is on the mat" contains six words.

See the difference? — Banno

No. The first statement you just wrote also has six words, the second has six words. They both have six words.

I'm being facetious, I know what you're trying to say really, but I disagree with the fact that it makes any useful claim about truth. As you write it, the two propositions are different, but as soon as it is in the public domain, your unquoted proposition becomes a quote, and it's pointless outside of the public domain, as we both know.

So all you're left with is the proposition - when someone else says "the cat is on the mat" it is true IFF I would say "the cat is on the mat" in the same circumstances.

ie, something is true if I think it is.

A more interesting reply, Isaac.

I disagree with the fact that it makes any useful claim about truth. — Isaac

Who said that it was useful? All I am claiming is that it is right! :wink:

So all you're left with is the proposition - when someone else says "the cat is on the mat" it is true IFF I would say "the cat is on the mat" in the same circumstances. — Isaac

...which is to say that when someone else and I say "the cat is on the mat", we mean the same thing.

I'm not offering a substantive theory of truth - quite the opposite. For me the issue in this thread is the error, explicit in Seagull, incipient in Hanover - that truth is much the same as belief. It's the inept move that would take one from your

when someone else says "the cat is on the mat" it is true IFF I would say "the cat is on the mat" in the same circumstances

and make it

when someone else says "the cat is on the mat" it is true IFF I believe "the cat is on the mat" in the same circumstances

Who said that it was useful? All I am claiming is that it is right! — Banno

So by 'right' you mean 'true'? How do you go about justifying a claim that a theory of truth is true? Isn't that where we started?

...which is to say that when someone else and I say "the cat is on the mat", we mean the same thing. — Banno

This, quite nicely, ties in with what Anscombe is saying in Modern Moral Philosophy (or at least, what I think she's saying). When someone else and I say "the cat is on the mat", we mean the same thing, in normal circumstances. There are exceptions, and the full list is not countable (not infinite, just non-countable). It is psychological state, historical conventions around language use that make it the case that you both mean the same thing (in normal circumstances).

So. A more encompassing definition of 'true' is perhaps - statements which are true are those which we are likely to say they are true in normal circumstances.

But in that sense, it is like 'blue' after all. Those things which are blue are exactly those of which we are likely to say they are 'blue' in normal circumstances.

Where this gets us into trouble is it makes it sound like what is 'true' changes as the likely response does, which intuitively seems wrong. "The earth is flat" was never true. But here I think we mistake what it is we're saying. The only two options we can talk about (according to the above) are;

a) what would they at the time be likely to say of such a proposition? Or
b) what would we be likely to say of such a proposition?

To presume the truth has anything to do with (a) is simply to mistake what 'truth' means. 'Slut' used to mean a maid, it doesn't anymore.

So. A more encompassing definition of 'true' is perhaps - statements which are true are those which we are likely to say they are true in normal circumstances. — Isaac

...and that would be wrong, wouldn't it; because we can be wrong about the things we might say.

SO the analogy with colour quickly fails.

...and that would be wrong, wouldn't it; because we can be wrong about the things we might say. — Banno

I don't see how. The moment we are wrong about a proposition, it is no longer likely that we would say that proposition was 'true'.

So, your cat is on the mat if you see him on the mat?
— Hanover

That's silly. Sometimes he is on the mat, and I'm not even in the house.

Make your point. If there is one. — Banno

The point is that the cat's being on the mat isn't dependent upon your seeing it. That was your point at least.

As you noted:

There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat! — Banno

How do I know the cat is on the mat? Poor Hanover cannot know. What element of JTB am I missing? I have a justification because I see it, and I believe what I see. But is the cat there? All you've said is that the cat is there if it's there. That was really helpful.

What the hell is the cat and the mat we're speaking of? We've already figured out it's something independent of you, or at least that's what you've said.

The OP, to remind ourselves, asks what Truth is. When I speak of the cat, and all it's wonderful characteristics, which are true and which are not? It's a metaphysical question ultimately, but I'll agree with that it is whatever it is, which is another way of saying "The cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat.

How do you go about justifying a claim that a theory of truth is true? Isn't that where we started? — Isaac

But things are not true or false because they are justified or unjustified...

The moment we are wrong about a proposition, it is no longer likely that we would say that proposition was 'true'. — Isaac

So... one never asserts a proposition that is false?

How do I know the cat is on the mat? — Hanover

And here is your problem - conflating the cat being on the mat with your knowing that the cat is on the mat.

You are wrong to think they are the same.

The cat can be on the mat and you can believe that the cat is on the mat.

The cat can be on the mat, and yet you do not believe that the cat is on the mat.

The cat can be elsewhere, and you believe that the cat is elsewhere.

The cat can be elsewhere, and yet you believe that it is on the mat.

You will only know that the cat is on the mat in cases where the cat is indeed on the mat.

If you believe that the cat is on the mat, but the cat is elsewhere, then what you believe is false.

I get that metaphysics is different from epistemology, but epistemology relies upon metaphysics because the T in the JTB is a direct link to what is.

So, yes, "the cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat, but it's a pretty useless statement if you don't know whether the cat is on the mat.

Anyway, you pitied me for not knowing the cat was on the mat:

There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat! — Banno

I guess I now pity you. Do you know that that the cat is on the mat, or do you just know that the proposition "the cat is on the mat" has a positive truth value if the the cat is on the mat?

I guess I now pity you. Do you know that that the cat is on the mat, or do you just know that the proposition "the cat is on the mat" has a positive truth value if the the cat is on the mat? — Hanover

He's not on the mat. He's on the chair.

DO you hav a point of any substance to make?

SO we agree that people make mistakes. A mistake is when someone believes something that is not true.

But you had claimed that, that a statement is true means that someone believes it. IF that were so, then it could never be the case that something were believed and yet not true. — Banno

I think you misundertsood @A Seagull. ( It's easy to do: I've misunderstood many seagulls!).

A Seagull did not say that for some proposition to be true is for someone to believe it, but that when someone says some proposition is true, what they really mean to say is that they believe it. There's a difference that makes a difference there...

I guess I now pity you. Do you know that that the cat is on the mat, or do you just know that the proposition "the cat is on the mat" has a positive truth value if the the cat is on the mat? — Hanover

Hanover cracked an apophat!

(But Banno's probably too tight and dry to receive it!)

He's not on the mat. He's on the chair. — Banno

I just don't understand this. I thought "He's on the chair" iff he's on the chair, but you seem to be using some other method for determining that he's on the chair.

I think I know what "he's on the chair means" when it has quotes on it. What does it mean to be on the chair without quotes? Is that a reference to metaphysical reality?

How can I know the truth of whether the cat is on the mat if I don't know what a cat is?

method — Hanover

?

Obviously, the way one determines if he is on the chair or no is not the same as his being on the chair, or not.

Yet you seem to think they are.

Again, you confuse his being on the chair with you being able to tell, to know, to believe that he is on the chair.

But Banno's probably too tight and dry to receive it! — Janus

Or perhaps it is the lack of competent foreplay.

:lol:

But things are not true or false because they are justified or unjustified... — Banno

I didn't say they were, I'm only asking how you would justify such a theory of truth. You said a proposition is 'true' IIF {that proposition}, "A" is true IFF A. So you've provided me with a proposition about what truth is, "T". In orer for it to be true then T has to be the case. How do we go about finding out is T is the case. With "the cat is on the mat" we look at the mat and see if there's a cat on . If the there is, the the cat is on the mat so "the cat is on the mat " is true.

You said (note the additional quotation marks) ""the cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat", now what do I look at to see if {"the cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat}?

So... one never asserts a proposition that is false? — Banno

I never said anything about "one" asserting it. I said "we" assert it. We collectively never assert a proposition which is false, how could we? I suppose we could have some kind of global agreement to all lie at the same time about something - on the stroke of midnight we're all going to say that the earth is flat - something like that. But we'd all know we were lying.

Again, you confuse his being on the chair with you being able to tell, to know, to believe that he is on the chair. — Banno

And you confuse the fact that I'm not confused.

Knowledge requires truth. Your assertion that your cat is on the chair asserts it is true the cat is on the chair. What does that mean?

You've got to define your entire sentence, not just the part you decide to put into quotes. "The cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat. X iff Y. What is Y?

Or perhaps it is the lack of competent foreplay. — Banno

Or it's just you enjoy evasiveness and get some rise out of not being open to actual discussion because you think your position so obvious and correct that it's beneath you to have to explain it. That's at least as it seems.