Sure. That's not what meta said, but we can proceed; all propositions are always, already, interpretations.
So is Meta's point that a given proposition can be true under one interpretation, and false under another?
Because I can't see how that could work. — Banno
If the proposition p is an unknown truth then either the proposition "p is an unknown truth" is an unknowable truth or there are no unknown truths. — Michael
But then I think sentences of the kind "p is an unknown truth" are different to sentences of the kind "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe", and so even if the former must be unknowable truths it doesn't then follow that the latter can be unknowable truths. — Michael
He said that a statement is true iff it is verifiable, which isn't the same as saying that it is true iff it is verified, — Michael
The group of words can be interpreted in different ways, and can be true or false depending on the interpretation. The proposition is, as you say, always already an interpretation. So this interpretation, which comprises the proposition, must be always already verified as the correct interpretation. Therefore there cannot be an unverified true proposition. The proposition is by its very nature already verified, and it is only by means of this "verified correct interpretation" that it may be true or false. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why can't "p is an unknown truth" itself be an unknown truth (if it is indeed true); why must it be unknowable? Am I missing something here? — Janus
Ok, so my point is that a propositions being true is not the very same thing as a propositions being verifiable; there are, of course, verifiable falsehoods... — Banno
SO at the very least he will need to take more care with his wording. — Banno
It's not a good thing to have the definiendum on both sides of the definition. — Banno
So there's one issue: defining verification without using truth... — Banno
When is an inquiry exhausted? — Banno
If some statement is true under one interpretation and false under another, then these two interpretations express distinct propositions.
That's pretty much what a proposition is. — Banno
Right, so if you and I are talking about the proposition "it is raining", what is the process which ensures that we each have the correct interpretation of the words "it is raining", such that we are both talking about the same proposition? — Metaphysician Undercover
what is the process which ensures that we each have the correct interpretation of the words "it is raining", such that we are both talking about the same proposition? — Metaphysician Undercover
It's never possible to know that "p is an unknown truth" is true because to know that you must know that p is an unknown truth, which is a contradiction. — Michael
Now we have truth apt, and presumably non-truth-apt-propositions.
In my world, all propositions are either true or false. that's what it is to be a proposition. — Banno
Why suppose there is such a process?
Is that a teleological assumption - there must be one true shared meaning, so there must be a process for verifying that we share the one true shared meaning - although apparently without making use of the word "true"... — Banno
we each have the correct interpretation of the words — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't believe there is any such thing as "one true shared meaning" — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think it makes any sense to say that there are non truth-apt propositions; — Janus
I'd say it's not so much about true propostions as it is about truth-apt propositions; the latter can of course be true or false. — Janus
"regulative assumptions". — Janus
we each have the correct interpretation of the words — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't believe there is any such thing as "one true shared meaning" — Metaphysician Undercover
This appears to me to be a pretty direct contradiction. I'm lost. — Banno
The phrase "truth-apt propositions" was contrasted with "True propositions", as if there could be propositions which were not truth-apt... — Banno
...are rubbish. You look in your wallet to see if there is money in it; you do not assume that there is money in it, and try to falsify your assumption. Regulative assumptions result from forcing explanations out of pragmatic preconceptions. — Banno
No, the point, which you apparently failed to get, was merely that not all truth-apt propositions are true propositions. — Janus
I can't see what point you are trying to make here; all this seems to show is that you have no understanding of the notion of regulative assumption. — Janus
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.