Banno

@"Bartricks"?

, so you think you can deduce transubstantiation from the cogito? Self serving twaddle, frankly. But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So...

Tarski's indefinability theorem. Another side issue, but with relevance. And again I will jump all over it without too much formal consistency, but if...

Model Theory This stuff: ...gives an interpretation to the terms of our metalanguage by setting out which objects those terms designate. Doing this is...

Cute. You have used it once or twice, proud grandad...:wink:

I think Dougie Herd has it about right... This above all - to thine own self be true

Using truth is not hard. But giving an account is.

Indeed. This stuff is complex.

It needn't. See Indexicals and Temporal Logic So that criticism of logic falls flat on its face.

Two very different questions that keep being mixed up: What is "true"? What sentences are true? T-sentences answer the first. @"Sam26" answered the se...

An implication for any language. Stepping up on level, what Tarski has done is to set out material adequacy as a condition for any theory of truth, th...

It always was. Putting p on both sides is a special case. Edit: See here.

Well, do that and you get antirealism thrown in for free.

Sure. But if it were true, the T-sentence would be true.

And yet, amusingly, even if this is so, because it is a conditional, ("this sentence is false" is true iff this sentence is false) is true.

You are tying a knot where one is not needed. "this sentence has thirty one letters" is in the object language. In the metalanguage, we name that sent...

I started a thread specifically on Tarski and the formal logic of truth.

Remember this? Whatever happens with liar, true or false, the T-sentence is true. Indeed, if one adopts a third truth value, between true and false, t...

In Tarski's case, by separating the metalanguage from the object language, so that such self-referential sentences cannot be constructed.

"this sentence has thirty one letters" is true iff that sentence has thirty one letters You mucked up which sentence you were talking about.

Defining truth So now we have the material adequacy condition for a theory of truth, together with definitions of designation and satisfaction that se...

I'd prefer to say that there is no universal way of determining which statements are true and which are not. But that T-sentences are a way of definin...

Again, an overreaction. Putting a sentence in the third person does much the same thing.

Designation and Satisfaction So we have, as a general form for any theory of truth, what Tarski called "Material adequacy", And we want to understand ...

NIce.

There's a term I haven't heard in a good while. But I mentioned Korzybski's General Semantics only a few weeks ago, somewhere here... "Is" in English ...

"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is true ? The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. To what does this correspond? "Frodo walked...

T-sentences do fit every* case of "'p' is true", but at the cost of triviality. But further, as with any term in a language, we don't need a definitio...

You present an argument that language is arbitrary, which in a sense it is, then jump to the non sequitur that truth is relative. You present an accou...

Murdoch v Crikey highlights how Australia’s defamation laws protect the rich and powerful

The main page has the relevant letters, which need deciphering.

So Crikey are being sued by Murdoch for this: Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator

I don't think so. Philosophy is inherently critical. Any Christian philosopher worth their salt would put their efforts into disproving Christianity. ...

If I'm surreptitious the mods will never learn. No, I'll probably start it again soon. But it's sunny, so not yet.

I agree. And yet it seems to be what you are saying. This is addressing the other.

So have we reached Aporia?

Yeah, it's be good to have a thread on that, so we could go into the detail... :groan:

...and now you seem to be agreeing with me.

And what of (II)?

No. I'm having the greatest difficulty in seeing what your objection is. Please take a look at Which is better? Because, again, you seem to be advocat...

Well, I'd say "yes". And I think, contra , that Tarski's analysis informs our use of "true" in natural languages.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about this: Again, it seems to me that you are suggesting that (II) is the better account. Am I wrong? This by w...

Seems to me to be a refinement of language over time. Very much in the way of Austin.

Don't be too concerned, you'll catch on. See this argument. It tries to capture were we differ.

Meh. It won't last.

A fine effort. Some problems, though - I like spinach. Fry it with a bit of lemon juice and pepper and serve it next to some red meat. Nothing better....

Oh, my bad. The reassurance was directed at the etymology. Statements are not facts. "Snow is white" is a true statement, but not a fact. That snow is...

This touches on the fundamental error in of many in this thread. The topic is truth, and not belief or justification. The substantive theories work (m...

I've been shitting where I eat, I'm afraid, Tiff. Having a little dummy spit about some poor moderating. @"Michael" came in for a few insults, for whi...

Who, me? You mean that "snow is white" is not a fact, because facts are things in the world, like that snow is white, and so while "snow is white" rep...