'True' has a use like the twelve on a traditional clockface or North on a compass. Or like the knight on a chessboard. A justified belief may be false. An unjustified belief may be true. We could, no matter how careful and clever, still be wrong.
What is the grammar of being right or wrong ? True or false ? To me it seems absolute. It is not reducible or exchangeable for warrant.
We can always be wrong about the world, because it doesn't make sense to say we could be wrong about being able to be wrong about it. The minimal specification of the world seems to be as that which we can be wrong about. The negation is incoherent. "It is wrong to claim we can we be wrong." — Pie
I don't see that. for me, the words on the right of "iff" in '"Snow is white" is true iff snow is white' point to the grounding fact of snow being white (or not).
To be sure 'snow is white' is a generality, and, in a sense an approximation, since there is no absolute standard of white, but if snow is, generally, white, then it is that actuality that leads us to count '"snow is white" is true', or 'snow is white' as being true. — Janus
I can hardly doubt there are plums in the fridge if I'm looking at them. — Janus
Sure, but this is a comment about belief. It's psychology, not grammar. — Pie
I suggest that knowledge is not about certainty but rather about protocols. Do I know that 2–√ is irrational ? Yes. But I can't gaze on it. I just know how to justify that claim.
But let's say that I think I saw them with my own eyes. Perhaps my memory is incorrect. Perhaps I hallucinated. Metaphysical certainty is a dead end. In fact, it only makes sense with the help of an absolute concept of truth. Assume P. — Pie
As I understand it, nothing in the deflationist's theory of truth "hits the bitumen of the world".
— Luke
Sure, on that account the meaningfulness of truth-bearers has nothing to do with truth. As I have said several times, T-sentences allow us to either assume meaning and explain truth, or to assume truth and explain meaning.
So of course it is assumed that ("p" is true) means the same as (p). — Banno
...the right hand side of A T-sentence is being used, it's where the spinning wheel of the T-sentence hits the bitumen of the world. — Banno
The right hand side of the t-sentence is being used, not talked about. It shows what makes the left side true. — Banno
See 4.9. — Banno
Perhaps it would be most accurate to say that deflationary theories remain incomplete, but offer a better account that any other theories. — Banno
Are you suggesting that deflationists have a theory of meaning rather than truth? — Luke
How does the deflationary theory offer a better account of truth than other theories? — Luke
According to you, the meaning of "true" is independent of anyone's beliefs or judgments. — Luke
Yes, deflation does not make use of truth-conditions to define truth, since that would be circular. I don't see what it is you are missing - unless you think that any theory of truth must make use of truth conditions...? — Banno
...the right hand side of A T-sentence is being used, it's where the spinning wheel of the T-sentence hits the bitumen of the world. — Banno
To my way of thinking if I'm looking at plums in the icebox, I don't believe they are there, I see them there, I know they are there. — Janus
In general, concepts have public meanings, however imperfectly grasped or exploited by this or that user. I'm suggesting that grammar of 'true,' or at least the part of it relevant here, is different than that of 'justified' or 'warranted' or 'likely.' 'True' is primitive or absolute in its simply endorsing P. It's confusingly, brutally simple. — Pie
A justified belief may be false. An unjustified belief may be true. We could, no matter how careful and clever, still be wrong.
What is the grammar of being right or wrong ? True or false ? To me it seems absolute. It is not reducible or exchangeable for warrant. — Pie
How does the deflationary theory offer a better account of truth than other theories? — Luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vervet_monkeyVervet monkeys have four confirmed predators: leopards, eagles, pythons, and baboons. The sighting of each predator elicits an acoustically distinct alarm call.[18] As infants, vervets learn to make the variety of calls from observation alone, without explicit tutelage.
That's not about endorsing P. That's about P being true or false regardless of our endorsement. — Luke
If I claim that P is true, I am expressing a belief, correct ? — Pie
A justified belief may be false. An unjustified belief may be true. We could, no matter how careful and clever, still be wrong.
What is the grammar of being right or wrong ? True or false ? To me it seems absolute. It is not reducible or exchangeable for warrant. — Pie
That's not about endorsing P. That's about P being true or false regardless of our endorsement. — Luke
If "true" means only "endorsing P", then that's all there is to the truth — Luke
how can a justified belief be false? — Luke
In what sense could we "still be wrong" about P if to say that P is "true" is merely to endorse it? — Luke
What does the second instance of "true" mean in the statement above? — Luke
I can simply think that P is true (believe P) with P not actually being true. — Pie
'True' is primitive or absolute in its simply endorsing P. It's confusingly, brutally simple. — Pie
I can believe P is true although not-P is true. — Pie
This can be translated as: you endorse P although you endorse not-P? — Luke
No. I'm surprised you ignore the crucial word 'believe.' To believe P is true is just to believe P.
I can believe P although or despite ~P. — Pie
I can believe P is true although not-P is true. — Pie
I can think/believe/assert that it's true that plums are in the icebox without it being true that plums are in the icebox. (The grammar of 'believe' is not the grammar of 'true.') — Pie
This can be translated as: you can believe you endorse P although you endorse not-P? — Luke
Your proposed translation might work for 'I can believe I claim P is true although not-P is true.' — Pie
One can believe that they approve of P? — Luke
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.