Luke

If the truth or falsity of T is dependent on the evidence, then it would seem to me that evidence has everything to do with correspondence, because yo...

Right, but then for what reason would scientists - or anyone else - ever change their minds about anything? I don't believe that scientists just decid...

Could you say more about "comes to light"? Is the falsity of T due to a lack of correspondence between T and the world, for example?

How? Doesn't that make truth relative to a person or society?

If the use of "is true" is equivalent to endorsing a statement, or if "p is true" is equivalent to the assertion of "p", then what is true is whatever...

Yes, I see. And that is the objection I've had to @"Pie"'s position from the outset - that the truth bearer, P, is not identical to the fact that P de...

Right, so there is no difference between the right hand side being identical to a fact of the world or equivalent to one?

This describes is the relationship between the left- and right-hand sides of a T sentence, not the relationship between the right-hand side and the wo...

Is there a difference between a proposition being identical to a fact and being equivalent to a fact?

Could you explain how this is not correspondence?

Deflation implies that truth is relative, right?

I think that’s how most people think of it, yes. A lie is especially indicative of this - it’s not really what happened.

What else is the connection? Surely it has a lot to do with how most speakers of a language use the words of that language. I tend to think of the dif...

According to deflationism, truth is no more than an endorsement of what is commonly believed to be true. If meaning is use, as per deflationism, then ...

I was trying to point out that deflationism is also incomplete. If deflationism is only consensus then what is the point of science and testing new th...

Enough for the proposition to be understood, I would think. It would be difficult to understand a proposition without any context.

My view is probably a mix mainly of deflationism and the correspondence theory (but I also see some value in the coherence theory, too). Correspondenc...

Where does mention or use come into it? Hopefully we can avoid that rigmarole. According to the correspondence theory, the truth of a proposition is d...

Once again, the correspondence view is that facts are what account for the truth of propositions. Do you deny that the factual existence of snow accou...

I’m giving the view of the Correspondence theory, as the IEP article demonstrates. Many posters here have expressed their advocacy of the Corresponden...

No, but I don’t agree with everything that “philosophers like to say”. And, as I have already pointed out, the article gives a passing mention to some...

So non-existent rivers are not facts? I might agree with you there. If the existence of a river accounts for the truth of a proposition (e.g. “this ri...

Actually, I asked you why an individual cannot be a fact. You didn’t answer this question and instead responded by stipulating that names are not fact...

I’ll try once again. According to the SEP article on Facts: Facts are what make a proposition true or account for the truth of a proposition. The exis...

As I already pointed out in the SEP article: In case you missed it again, facts are what make propositions true, and - it is usually assumed - the exi...

I never said that you were; I said that I wasn’t alone in my view either. . Therefore, I am not alone in rejecting your “stipulation”.

Your link is not entirely supportive of your claims: I have appealed to dictionary definitions and ordinary language use. This article mentions my use...

Why can't an individual be a fact? Isn't snow a thing in the world and, therefore, a fact of the world? As I mentioned earlier, one definition of "fac...

Facts are things in the world - as you said. We use names to refer to things in the world; to distinguish them from other things.

I didn't say names are true. I said things in the world have names and they are facts.

Bongo can defend himself, but he did not say that the thing on the right is the name of a fact. Anyhow, you appear to be saying that names are not fac...

:up:

Just using "is true" as we normally do.

Yup.

"This sentence" is true iff this sentence.

That's why I said we should consider why we say that a statement is false. I suggested it could be due to being in conflict with our current conceptua...

Sure, I'm happy to call it "narrative". Or maybe our current conceptual frame. I don't agree that the distinction between fact and fiction corresponds...

The T schema does cover both of these cases. If snow is not green, then the antecedent is not true. You could ask: why is it not a fact that snow is g...

And, as @"bongo fury" has just pointed out, you seem to be agreeing with the correspondence theory.

No, I'm not advocating II. That snow is white does not represent a fact; it is a fact.

I wasn't sure. @"Pie" certainly appeared to be arguing against the distinction. I didn't know whether this was a common view among deflationists. Not ...

No, it's the same as saying that a river is a fact.

Are there any truth conditions, or is it simply an algebraic biconditional? Isn't that just substituting "domain" for "the world"? This still does not...

I don’t understand the use-mention comparison. If P is the way the world is when “P” is true, this implies that “P” already has a use/meaning. And P’s...

According to PI, the meaning of a word often depends on how it is used and/or "is what an explanation of its meaning explains" (560). I believe the wa...

Why not? Is that a sentence in your pocket or are you conceding there's a categorical difference between a sentence and a fact?

And I thought you were arguing against this: I was going to post this earlier to try and highlight the categorical difference: A sentence (as a string...

I wouldn't think so; hence the categorical difference.

I have a piece of paper with the word “coin” written on it. Is that a coin?

According to who is not-P true? If it's not Bob endorsing not-P, then who is? My point is that when you say "...but not-P is true", then you are using...