Banno

Yep; that's exactly why empiricism tries to militarise the term, as can be seen in this thread. @"Athena" may have. a desire to take advantage of that...

Our empiricist and pragmatist friends - @"Tom Storm", @"Olivier5" - have been misled by considering only a limited number of examples of the use of fa...

Indeed. It's not that the Bishop can only move diagonally, but that doing otherwise is not playing chess. So many facts are not decided empirically. S...

Yes!

Think on this: how do you know that the Bishop moves diagonally? What observation supports this? Do you really think that the Bishop moves diagonally ...

If there is an issue with what I have said, set it out. You apparently want to ask when we should believe this or that statement. I don't see any reas...

Notice I re-wrote the third point. T-sentence does give a general cade for truth; at the expense of redundancy.

ANd keep in mind the other uses, some of which are listed here:

Cheers. Well, no; I answered that too, explicitly, like so... First, a fact is a true statement by definition. There are no facts that are not true. S...

Meh. I gave you the answer in the fourth post. Everything after that is quibbling.

I've given you the answer. What you do with it is up to you.

Here we go again. That's average velocity. The instantaneous velocity is the slope of the tangent of the position-time graph at that particular instan...

Unfortunately, I have to go and Do The Things today, a day on which a long post is needed. But I might drop a link here to an article that came up in ...

The front garden grass count?

Are these "frameworks" background, taken as granted in order to state a fact, or are they conceptual frames, within which coherence is to be maintaine...

See the goalposts move. The plain fact is that being true and being known to be true are two different things.

Hmm. A T-sentence is all-or-nothing. Any finesse would be in the subject and object sentences. "It's 99% possible that's a cockroach" is true IFF it's...

That's dreadfully inaccurate. Oh, well, I suppose it's down to background and education. Cheers and goodnight.

:wink: If you must. I think there is a reason that the SEP does not have an entry called "the observation theory of truth". How's that cockroach?

So you've got that ‘snow is white’ is true iff people observe snow to be white. Can you see that this is not a correspondence theory of truth? It's an...

Well, what is the exact nature of the "correspondence" in your theory? Folk who work with redundancy will also describe it as correspondence; but it i...

Yes, as explained above - it has the advantage that the correspondence is explicit: it's truth-functional. The problem with correspondence is that it ...

The expression found in the T-sentence; "P is true" is the same as P. The "...is true" is redundant. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-defl...

Bye.

When it is true...?

Yeah. Nuh. You lost me.

Yes - with the quibble that there are other legitimate uses, as listed in the OED, for a start. So for example, saying that such-and-such is a fact ca...

What?

Yeah, there is - redundancy.

You're perhaps beginning to see it. Being a fact is the same as being true.

I think the T-sentence is the best that can be done. Truth is so very fundamental to language that there is nothing that can be said about it, no capa...

I'm with you. A fact can be unknown and not believed by anyone. This is the only way in which we can account for error. We thought it was a fact, but ...

Yes... except that the "correspondence" in a T-sentence is about as well-defined as is possible: it's truth-functional.

Vague, or general? A T-sentence can be applied to any statement, and so is more general than correspondence. It has the advantage of being undeniable....

The Correspondence Theory of Truth It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in.

That word doesn't just carry baggage; it comes with its own shipping container. So it's not a phrasing I would choose.

:wink:

SO 3.1 is not as accurate a value of pie as 4.56324, because the latter is five orders of magnitude more exact.

My bad. Clicked the wrong reply button. My apologies. @"Laguercina" has just joined, and at this rate will be leaving us soon.

Get to your point.

That cat.

then:

SO, what is accuracy? What makes one measurement more accurate than another?

So being accurate is just being true? Then an accurate observation is just a true observation. How do you tell the observation is true? THis by way of...

Did you reply to this? If you did I missed it.

Well, no. You can decide for yourself. But what you decide is not what makes it true. It's a point of grammar. Actually, scratch that. You mean the ot...

Yep:

That's not my claim. The world is always and already interpreted. Yeah, but I can beat up two more folk at the same time.

Hmm. I'll invite @"T Clark" and @"Olivier5" to respond to Ennui, given what they have claimed here.

An appeal to falsification? The facts do not support your contention. The quotes given are not from empirical philosophers. Fact is, your definition o...