I can speak for others, but I'd say it means the same thing (roughly) as not-P. — Pie
'P is true',if spoken by Bob, is roughly equivalent to Bob saying 'P' or endorsing 'P' when said by someone else, perhaps with a 'yes indeed.' — 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). — Janus
"snow is white " is true iff s..........All we need to do now is work out what s might be. — Banno
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have a different view. For me knowledge is about certainty, certainty that is, not in any "absolute" sense, but in the context of everyday experience. If I see plums in the fridge, I am certain they are there. If I close the fridge door, and am still standing in front of the fridge I am virtually as certain that they are there. If I leave the room for a few moments and then return, I might still be almost as certain. If I left the room for an hour, and was confident no one else was around then I might still be almost as certain. And so on. But I would say that I only know, that is I can only be certain ( i.e. without any attendant doubt) that they are there if I am looking at them. Once I step away, knowledge steps aside with me, and belief kicks in, to be assessed as more or less justified. — Janus
We can ask what such a theory might look like. If it is adequate to its task, it will deliver, for every sentence, something that tells us if that sentence is true.
So it will have the form
For any sentence p, p is true if and only if ϕ
Further, to avoid circularity, the notion of truth cannot occur in ϕ.
And finally, this will not work for a language strong enough to talk about its own sentences, because directly it will be able to generate a sentence of the form — Banno
How do we verify our truth theory, if its pure metaphysics? — Yohan
My point is that when you say "...but not-P is true", then you are using "is true" in a non-deflationary way. — Luke
Is there any practical difference between understanding the logic of truth, and how to know the truth? — Yohan
A twenty-seven-month-old child can know when "there's nothing in there" is false, when the speaker is talking about a fridge. I gave that real life example earlier. She demonstrated that knowledge. She has no idea whatsoever about theories of truth. The terms "truth" and "falsehood" are not even understood by her. She certainly does not understand the logic of truth. — creativesoul
Truth is not belief - already covered:
Truth is a unary. T(p) is a general representation of the statements, propositions, sentences, facts, or whatever you will, that we cast as true: "p is true"
Belief is binary. B(x,p) is a general representation of the statements, propositions, sentences, facts, or whatever you will, p, that we cast as being believed by x. "x holds that p is true"
— Banno
Further, one chooses between a realist and an antirealist grammar. The best grammar for cats and mats is realist. — Banno
A twenty-seven-month-old child can know when "there's nothing in there" is false, when the speaker is talking about a fridge. I gave that real life example earlier. She demonstrated that knowledge. She has no idea whatsoever about theories of truth. The terms "truth" and "falsehood" are not even understood by her. She certainly does not understand the logic of truth.
— creativesoul
Which is why use tells us much more about these concepts, i.e., tells us much more about meaning and understanding. — Sam26
a. "snow is white" is true iff snow is white
b. snow is white iff the mind-independent material world is a certain way
c. Therefore, "snow is white" is true iff the mind-independent material world is a certain way
That would be closer to the traditional correspondence theory. — Michael
We can see that the fault in this justification lies within the assumption that a change to the temporal continuity of existence would necessarily be observed by you. Since this is a required premise in that justification, and it is not a sound premise, truth cannot be ascertained through that justification, and doubt is summoned. — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps it would be most accurate to say that deflationary theories remain incomplete, but offer a better account that any other theories. — Banno
Indeed. It's puzzling how a child that can barely string two or three words together knew when she heard the claim that it was not true, and then went on to demonstrate that much, and yet highly educated people seem to have talked themselves right out of that. — creativesoul
Is there any practical difference between understsnding the logic of truth, and how to know the truth? — Yohan
Indeed. It's puzzling how a child that can barely string two or three words together knew when she heard the claim that it was not true, and then went on to demonstrate that much, and yet highly educated people seem to have talked themselves right out of that.
I think that that qualifies for Witt's notion of bewitchment. The story may be able to tell us something about hinge propositions??? — creativesoul
The dogma of the linguistic keeps some in their slumber. — Fooloso4
I'm not concerned with it because there are no known instances of "changes to the temporal continuity of existence", which means we have no reason to take their possibility into consideration. If we do find one, then we can start worrying about it. — Janus
Isn't part of this because they have taken Plato's cave allegory to heart? The assumption being that those illusory shadows are everywhere and that only adults and smart people can work to discover the truth behind the deception of appearances. — Tom Storm
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.