Using more than one sense of the same term constitutes a formal fallacy. Equivocation. It also inevitably leads to self-contradiction.

I do not understand what you are doing. — Banno

I thought he was referring to bivalence...

Gimme a minute. No worries. I'll set it out for you.

A discussion of all senses requires a very careful progression, and can lead to quite a bit of confusion. They are not compatible.

...you have not relied on truth functionality to define correspondence... — Banno

If truth is correspondence and this question aims at that then "truth functionality" needs to be re-worded. Otherwise, the substitution of "truth" with "correspondence" results in a nonsensical question.

Ok. Let's see where this leads...

Concepts are existentially dependent upon language use. Do you agree?

You seem to be conflating different senses of the term.

We're not that far apart.

Correspondence to fact/reality is not a concept. "Truth" is a concept.



I'd love to debate that in the proper forum.

:wink:

There are remarkable differences between truth and actuality. If one equate the two, one is essentially defining "truth" as the way things are.

Statements correspond to truth... ???

You see the problem?

But then, correspondence isn't wrong here.
— Banno

It's dualistic, though. — frank

Is it?

It's only dualistic if one holds that all statements are true or false(bivalence). I'm a strong advocate for correspondence, but do not think that all statements are truth-bearers. Predictions are neither true nor false.

The question of "how" may be an old objection, but it's toothless unless one thinks that it is a legitimate and/or valid objection. I do not. Correspondence is truth. Truth is what makes true statements what they are( that is not amenable to the conventional correspondence theory).

Truth-bearers can correspond to fact/reality(or not) solely as a result of saying something meaningful about it(or not).

That's how.

"2+2=4" is meaningful because we say so. "The cat is on the mat" is meaningful because we say so. "I love vanilla ice cream" is meaningful because we say so.

The arithmetic claim is true because it corresponds to fact/reality. In this case, our rigid standards(names for quantities). The claim about the cat and the mat is true because it corresponds to fact/reality. In this case the cat is on the mat. The claim about the ice cream is true because it corresponds to fact/reality. In this case one's personal tastes/preferences.

It's not that hard to understand. Philosophy proper has made a mess out of it though.

Realizing where we went wrong(after the war begins) and/or adjusting our plan according to day to day activities doesn't require pragmatism or the pragmatic notion of truth.

That doesn't look like a good way to go... at least not from here. I mean, what's the sense in invoking working as a necessary condition. Whether or not something works is goal oriented. Whether or not something is true is not. A true statement may not work to convince another. It does not work for that. It's true nonetheless.

Shake your head and walk away...

Some who call themselves "atheists" are just as fundy as religious ones.

Language. It is not interpreted; it is understood. — god must be atheist

Language is not "understood" — god must be atheist

But, I think importantly, this proposition/correspondence thing is only one part of what's going on - the part that builds 'models' of the world, and tries to make the model correspond to the situation as much as possible. It relies a lot on fixity, and macro-perspectives. This all changes quickly when the battle beings and then you need a

Pragmatic theory of truth. Which is: what's true is what works. — csalisbury

I do not understand this at all. Before battle, we need true belief to know how to plan. Battle begins. Sometimes what we predicted would happen does not. So, our belief about what was going to happen ended up being false.

Falsehood works very well for getting people to believe something that is not true. According to what you've just said... falsehood is true because it works.

Something is wrong there. Wouldn't you agree?

Think outside the dualistic box (without losing your mind). — frank

One must first have a mind prior to being able to lose it.

...truth is a property of propositions — frank

Yes. That is the conventional standard I reject.

Just briefly glanced through the SEP article. There's much to be agreed with.

No need to step off into irrelevancy.

That's not the sense of "true" or being true that we're concerned with. Although, it could be argued that a true drill bit corresponds to conventional quality standards. It would make no sense to call one that fails to meet that standard "false". "Sub-standard"... sure. "Inferior"... sure. "Low quality"... sure. "False"?

No.

Drill bits aren't the sort of things that can be true/false. I think convention calls those things truth-bearers. Thought. Belief. Assertions. Statements. Propositions. Etc. Truth-bearer allows us to continue to talk about what makes those things true(or false) without getting sidetracked. It remains neutral. I like the notion for that reason.

It's Trump's responsibility as president to investigate corruption. He said so himself. That's what the phone call was about... that's it! He said so himself.

Interesting thing is that he has not investigated Russian interference any further. Not a dime into that, or stopping that from happening again.

It is an alternate universe.

What sorts of things can be true and what makes them so?

That question gets somewhere.

Those are all different senses of the term "truth".

It's the nuanced account of what correspondence consists of in the conventional account that I disagree with. The explanation as it were.

...shouldn't the truth, by virtue of being the truth, exert some power of its own — frank

If "the truth" is the set of germane true statements, then no. Absolutely not. Statements do not exert power. People should value true statements('the' truth) because doing so is imperative for successfully navigating the world. That's the power of true belief. Having true belief decreases the odds of making mistakes.

Structuring an assertion requires belief, and truth is a predicate of assertions, hence truth requires belief. — Banno

Truth requires belief.

But...

The world is spherical regardless of whether or not anyone believes the world is spherical.

Certainly. That's why it's humorous. I'll check my rule against it for accuracy.

uler manufacturers aren't even aware of the official standard that an inch is 127/500 of the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. They probably just use some sort of template they have on hand. — Terrapin Station

Official Bollocks.

What counts as an inch was established long before we even knew the speed of light.

With friends like that...

:yikes:

Be well Sapientia.

I really did like S. We had some good times, but what can you do if someone tells you to fuck off and to ban them when they are being moderated? — Hanover

You can offer a temporary suspension.

I really did like S. We had some good times, but what can you do if someone tells you to fuck off and to ban them when they are being moderated? — Hanover

You can realize that sometimes people do things that they later come to regret. The timeframe varies.

I really did like S. We had some good times, but what can you do if someone tells you to fuck off and to ban them when they are being moderated? — Hanover

You can understand that that person is acting in a self-destructive way.

Some bad decisions are the result of bad environment. Do you recognize that too?
— creativesoul

Sure, and some good decisions are made in bad environments.

Perfect freedom doesn't exist, but our choices matter. — Hanover

Sure. Some people choose to drive black during the day.

Bad luck anywhere in there?
— creativesoul

Sure, and good luck, which I'd think would be as likely to befall one race as the next. — Hanover

Bad luck for an entire race? Sure. Sickle cell. Bad luck for some people of that race? Sure. Walking black at night.

The latter is the problem.

I recognize it and realize when failures are the result of bad decisions versus a bad environment. — Hanover

Some bad decisions are the result of bad environment. Do you recognize that too?

I get stuck and must move on to a different post, thread, forum or activity to reboot my mind. — Banno

Shake it off!

:wink:

We can stick with belief if you like. We've had this discussion multiple times. I don't mind doing it a bit differently...

Take the lead.

Pointing at Tarski doesn't help.

Tarski's thought, belief, and/or ideas are the standard by which to 'measure' anyone/everyone else's interpretation of Tarski.

You and I are largely in agreement here. Although, I reject the conventional Correspondence Theory. On my view, correspondence with/to what's happened and/or is happening(reality/fact/actuality/the world/the way things are, etc.) is what makes thought, belief, assertions, propositions, and statements true. Truth is correspondence.

The T-sentence shows this nicely. Truth cannot be further reduced. Correspondence requires exactly what Tarski shows. Nothing less. Nothing more. Of course, a statement is a statement of belief. Statements are not required for belief. Thus, statements are not necessary for truth. Belief however, most certainly is necessary for both statements and truth.

The general claim that I object to is that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what’s important. — praxis

That claim is true(or not) regardless of Street. If Street claims that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what's important, then I would have to agree. That standard(being crystal clear about what's important) is determined, established, and met exclusively by what they believe at any specific time. I do think it needs further quantification/qualification.

The general objection I'm levying is the personal devaluation/degradation of Trump and/or 'Trump supporters' as a means to affect/effect the necessary changes.

There are better ways to shed much broader light upon the situation at hand. Some of those ways can and do affect/effect significant change not only in the minds of some Trump voters, but also in the minds of many others who yet to have seriously considered the past forty or so years of American legislation and it's effects/affects.

Not sure what that matters here...

So, because you know of no Trump supporters who are certain(crystal clear) of what's important, there are none?

Whenever I get to your construct
thought/belief
— creativesoul
I get stuck and must move on to a different post, thread, forum or activity to reboot my mind. — Banno

Try now. I eliminated it.

I like the T-sentence.