The chirps aren't about anything. They're just chirps. — Tate

Are you sure you aren't a self-hating behaviorist ?

Are you sure you aren't a self-hating behaviorist ? — Pie

:razz:

A trap in philosophy and is getting so tangled up in theory and language that all we have is an infinite regress of maps referring to other maps, and reality attaining the status of myth and legend. — Yohan

True. Per Frege, infinite regress is the reason to abandon attempts to define truth.

But the point I was making previously was that your power to make existential claims based on true statements depends on whether your audience accepts correspondence theory. There's no reason they have to do that. They can be truth skeptics if they want.

But the point I was making previously was that your power to make existential claims based on true statements depends on whether your audience accepts correspondence theory. There's no reason they have to do that. — Tate

If they reject correspondance theory they would be doing that on the basis that they think correspondance theory doesn't correspond with the way truth works.

You have to accept correspondance theory in order to say correspondance theory doesn't correspond with reality.

Or else, what does it mean to say correspondance theory is untrue?

If they reject correspondence theory they would be doing that on the basis that they think correspondence theory doesn't correspond with the way truth works. — Yohan

No. A truth skeptic would say correspondence theory lacks analytical clarity. The truth predicate just has a certain role in language use.

A truth skeptic would say correspondence theory lacks analytical clarity — Tate

That still seems like its about correspondance.
That, in order for a statement or theory to correspond with reality, it must be analytically clear. Since unclear statements can't be tested to see if they correspond.

Maybe I don't get it?
Can you give an example of a truth claim that is true despite not corresponding with reality?

Can you give an example of a truth claim that is true despite not corresponding with reality? — Yohan

Let's take the claim that it's going to rain tomorrow.

Can you explain what two things we're supposed to see corresponding?

Are we ready to live on the truth? — javi2541997

And the question of the year award goes to javi2541997.

attempts to define truth. — Tate

Do you suppose we need justifications for definitions i.e. can we ask why, as herein relevant, one defines truth in the way we have/will? There are many theories of truth (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, etc.) and all of 'em are reasoned-to theories.

In short does the notion of correctness apply to the definition of truth?

In short does the notion of correctness apply to the definition of truth? — Agent Smith

I think not. Correctness depends on a way of functional ethics which leads some dilemmas. For example: the "correct" way of helping a kid who passed through a trauma is avoiding him from it even with lies. I am acting so correctly but... I am not telling to that kid the "truth" right?

I think not. Correctness depends on a way of functional ethics which leads some dilemmas. For example: the "correct" way of helping a kid who passed through a trauma is avoiding him from it even with lies. I am acting so correctly but... I am not telling to that kid the "truth" right? — javi2541997

I have no idea what you're talking about! Nevertheless, it exudes verissimilitude/truthiness. Perhaps me too dumb to understand mon ami! Gracias even so, muchas gracias.

What I mean is: sometimes we have to use lies to help others because it is right despite the fact that we are avoiding to them the truth.
Sometimes the truth could be painful.

What I mean is: sometimes we have to use lies to help others because it is right despite the fact that we are avoiding to them the truth.
Sometimes the truth could be painful. — javi2541997

Are we ready to live on the truth? — javi2541997

:up:

Let's take the claim that it's going to rain tomorrow.

Can you explain what two things we're supposed to see corresponding? — Tate

Good morning from my side.

As I see it you wait till tomorrow and see if it rains.
If it does, then the claim is in accord with reality.
Although this is not deductive knowledge, but inductive guess.

With deduction its about corresponding or according with laws of logic or root definitions.
With induction its about according or corresponding with the appearance of the world.

Consistent with, in accord, corresponding, cohering with, matching.

Consistent with, in accord, corresponding, cohering with, matching. — Yohan

What two things correspond? There's an SEP article on correspondence theory .

Look at the "objections" section. Also, there's an SEP article on truthmakers, which is one of the most fascinating topics in philosophy.

What two things correspond? — Tate

The truth claim and the truth criteria.

The truth claim and the truth criteria. — Yohan

What exactly is a truth claim? Is it sounds and marks? Is it a sentence? Or is it something else?

What exactly is a truth claim? Is it sounds and marks? Is it a sentence? Or is it something else? — Tate

I guess 'truth claim' is redundant. To claim means to state that something is the case. Dunno how to define 'state'. Maybe 'to express a belief'.
I don't think a 'belief' is sounds and marks. Sounds and marks are made so that ideas can be communicated or recorded down.
So then what exactly is an 'idea', 'thought' or 'belief'. Its something of the mind? What is mind? Something to do with subjectivity, with "my" being, or perspective, or perception. What is being. What am I? What is perception?
Can what these are, if they are more than imaginary constructs of the "mind", be put down in writing? How could they?
But this is a process of going deeper and deeper to the foundation. Maybe truth doesn't correspond to any idea or theory?

So then what exactly is an 'idea', 'thought' or 'belief'. Its something of the mind? What is mind? Something to do with subjectivity, with "my" being, or perspective, or perception. What is being. What am I? What is perception?
Can what these are, if they are more than imaginary constructs of the "mind", be put down in writing? How could they? — Yohan

The two parts that "correspond" in correspondence theory are called the truthbearer and the truthmaker.

As you see, the philosophical ground becomes boggy when we go to try to explain what each of those are, and we haven't even gotten to the nature of the correspondence relation yet.

Though it's fun to wade through that bog searching for iron age witches, there are bigger problems with correspondence theory, probably the biggest being that according to plain logic laid out by Frege, truth can't be defined.

according to plain logic laid out by Frege, truth can't be defined. — Tate

This is a problem with language in general, and why its important to understand the limits of language. The language of logic only works if we already have our definitions in place. We can't use logic to determine definitions. How are definitions established in the first place, prior to logic? and...is there any truth value to a definition? Or is a definition something made up, something without truth value, like art?

I'm not sure what you're saying there

I agree there is problems with correspondance theory but also think it still needs to be used in dealing with pragmatic realty. I doubt its either or. Is there a truth theory that is less tricky?

Is there a truth theory that is less tricky? — Yohan

I don't think so.

I don't think so. — Tate

So how to we determine which to use if they are all tricky? I guess that is another question without a clear answer.

I guess the question would be: why do we need a theory of truth? Why do we need to have a definition? We can't teach someone what truth is.