But you have not commented on the traditional competitors of the correspondence theory of truth, which are the coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist theories of truth.

They are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism.

"In recent years, the traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory: they now lead the attack against correspondence theories.

Another approach to truth that has recently received considerable attention is truthmaker theory; it is sometimes viewed as a competitor to, sometimes as a more liberal version of, the correspondence theory."


So isn't the Correspondence theory of truth, simply an opinion or point of view that you happen to agree with?

I'll comment on other theories of truth as soon as someone puts one forth using their own words, and offers their own reasons for holding such a position. Doing that shows an understanding. Until then, it is futile to show how, why, and where alternative truth theories fail. It would be akin to attempting to explain calculus to a student who unbeknowst to me, very well could be struggling to understand his/her multiplication tables.

I mean, as it stands, in an earlier post simple arguments were given that negated the reasons that idealism sets forth as ground to conclude that we cannot acquire knowledge about reality. For now, prior to even being able to understand whether or not an objection to correspondence theory holds good, one must first understand what correspondence theory holds.



No.

Creative good to see you on.

I have been reading through here and.....I don't get it...lol

Figures huh?

I understand the linguistic fact part and I understand the objective fact part and the difference so does that meant that I understand the correspondence theory?

I prefer the word fact for those matters that are indisputable. Truth has a more "personal experience" ring to it and I will always hold that it is subjective in almost all situations.

I have a hard time with the linguistic facts myself since I like to create my own words for things and use my own form of grammar

Hey dragoness!

While many people hold to the notion that we each have our own truth, and therefore truth is subjective accordingly, that is a very dangerous way to think for many diferent reasons. Rather than get into all that, suffice it to say that when we talk about his truth, her truth, your truth, and my truth, we are really taking about what he holds to be true, what she holds to be true, what you hold to be true, and what I hold to be true.

In other words, we're not talking about truth, we're talking about belief.

And don't feel bad about wondering whether or not you understand all this... I'm actively working through it myself.

It is good to see you too. Hope life is treating you well.

Understood but having been in the debating business for a little while , I have discovered that the indisputable fact of a matter will sometimes be disputed at a level of personal experience that although not an objective fact, probably not a linguistic fact but a personal truth level that makes the debatability of the unverifiable fact hard when it shouldn't be.

They are beliefs, no doubt. But to prove them wrong is another matter.

Isn't the proof of a fact that it is indisputable? Or is it just what is accepted? Truth is what is accepted?

Hey I don't know, I confuse myself sometimes but it is always great when it happens..lol shows how human I am.

Life is good. Keeping up with my physical health, mental and spiritual well being is always priority.

In my opinion, when we talk about personal truth, it is about more than simply what one "holds to be true." It is also about individual experience and the sum total of that.

Sounds like a (very) brief summary of objectivism (itself in many ways an outgrowth of Aristotlian philosophy) to me.

Not on the subject of ice and beheadings. I don't need for you to agree, these facts are as true as my own existence, you agreement isn't necessary for those facts to be true, nor for me to recognize them.

What I seek is a reduction in harmful, irresponsible denial. People wage war because they believe things that aren't true, many die every year as a direct consequence of false beliefs, huge amounts of money are wasted every year due to false beliefs, and corrupt people gain power over other people due to false beliefs. There are many reasons I speak out against lines of 'reasoning' that undermine reality-oriented worldviews, sanity, good sense, honesty, and sound reasoning.



Could you change your mind about this? Could you choose not to agree with this fact, and thereby achieve the ability to have your head severed and left by itself on a dusty wooden table, and have your cns activity continue indefinitely?

Objectivism... as in Ayn Rand?

I dislike that particular foolosophy.

Good post massage. Good post.

There are very few indisputable linguistic facts. Objective facts are - simply put - a matter of being independent of our thought/belief about them.



We need not necessarily prove another's belief wrong, even if it is. Often all that is needed is a better explanation, one which carries more overall explanatory power.



Not necessarily.



What is accepted as true is belief. If it is true, then it is true belief. If it is justified(the person has come to reasonable. logical terms with it) then it is justified true belief(JTB). It is most often the case - although not always - that a JTB constitutes knowledge.



Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Belief presupposes truth correspondence. In other words, I believe X means I believe X is true, is the case, is the way things are, etc.

Pig number 1 is aware of the facts.

Pig number 2 is aware of the truth.






Pig number 3 (me) is aware of the divergence and inability to focus of some parts of this thread.

Truth equals fact in most cases.

It is only the area (set) where they appear to diverge that seems worthy of discussion. The rest is the trivial solution.

Pig number 4 (the patient) is so seeped in intransigent salts as to have no ability to act like a pig ... only food for thought. The careful collection of specific spicy ideas has left said porker with only one flavor.

It is the second ham on this thread.

metal,

pics are nice and all, but I cannot understand the logic underneath what you're saying...

Are you saying that fact and truth are mind dependent?

I'm not grasping the equation between the two either. I mean you've repeated that a few times, but offered no reasoning for doing so.

I tend to write briefly with possible. Perhaps too brief.

My point is that facts do not depend upon human understanding. They stand alone as parts of the physical universe.

Truth however, depends upon human understanding to be meaningful and is seen a little differently by every individual. I am not sure the concept of truth has any meaning without humanity.

Facts are hard and cold ... immutable. The facts correspond with the truth in almost all cases but human understanding is quite mutable and twisted. Therefore, in some cases, perspective comes into play in the definition of a given truth.

Bill Clinton once said, "I did not have sex with that woman!". Legally, depending upon various definitions of sex, he may or may not have been telling the truth or stating the facts correctly. But the example would appear to be open to human interpretation.

I thought the pig cartoon was the perfect example to illustrate this point.

crosspost...edited out to respond to the last.

This is akin to what I call objective fact. Agreed.



This could use some unpacking. I agree that truth depends upon human understanding, but we ought be careful to not confuse the term with truth itself. If we frame truth in conceptual terms, we've already put it into a man-made box, for all conceptions are man-made. I think that that is a mistake.



Yes. This makes perfect sense if we hold that truth is subjective; ie. changes along with perspective/meaning. However, I find that it is only as a logical consequence of equating truth with personal meaning/definition that these semantic 'problems' are even able to arise. I find that "a definition of a given truth" is not truth itself. Truth is irreducible.

Oddly, Mingle will not let me quote the last post.

There is a lot of discussion here about how the set of truth overlaps the set of opinion. If one was to draw a series of overlapping circles to mathematically describe such set convergence, there would be a grey area where human opinion is not the same given the same facts. This grey area could be due to "different understanding" as opposed to lack thereof (which falls into another set).

I was trying to separate the set where facts directly correspond to the truth as being the trivial solution and not worthy of discussion.

Next, I would try to remove the set of "beliefs" from the set as being a set for a different topic and really not having anything to do with truth. Many beliefs are false.

I am saying that the mind has nothing to do with facts at all. I will further venture that in my world, facts are not subject to human interpretation.

What is left is a small set of circumstances were the facts are immutable but the understanding by the human mind is mutable. In this little set truth depends upon the totality of the specific human's point of reference and can vary greatly.

Did Bill have sex with that woman? I really don't think beliefs matter in the truth.

I deleted it, that's why you could not qoute it. The set theory can be put to use here though, I'm in agreement with that. To avoid further crossposting, I'll wait for you to confirm being finished prior to my responding to what you last wrote.