Well, just to be picky -- it's apparenly caching -- Kant, among others,
tells us that the correspondence theory of truth was roundly lampooned
already in ancient times, and Peirce invites the reader to his inquiry
on truth by mentioning the correspondence theory, but immediately adds
that this can afford nothing more than a "nominal definition" of truth. (03)
I think it is fair to say that key, active ingredients
of truth are missing from correspondence theory recipe. (04)
Cf: http://www.centiare.com/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth (05)
Jon Awbrey (06)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Rick, Jon, and Mills,
> Those are good suggestions, which I hope may get this forum
> back on track toward something useful.
> RM> I think our next paradigm can be stated simply as: Languages,
> > Logics, Models and Theories. With emphasis on plurality, and many
> > thanks to Robert Kent of ontologos for such an elegant abstraction
> > that says so much !
> JA> Here are a couple of pithy observations from two postings of
> > Henry Story...
> HS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Aug/0025.html
> | Now the other way of looking at truth is that
> | there is a relation between statements and reality.
> | That still holds. If you accept as true statements that
> | are wrong, reality will soon remind you of your mistake.
> The first sentence is a version of the correspondence theory
> of truth, which has been the most common approach from Aristotle
> to Tarski. And the second emphasizes Peirce's point about the
> need to test that correspondence.
> MD> I've come across pages that discuss philosophical assumptions that
> > underly different research perspectives in different disciplines.
> > The [following] table is an example of one analysis -- this one
> > discussing three such perspectives or philosophical orientations
> > relating to design research in the information systems space:
> The design perspective in the third column of that table would
> seem to be the most directly applicable to the goals of designing
> useful ontological resources.
> MD> Here is a link to the source website where you'll find a
> > general overview of design research, including a discussion of
> > its philosophical and epistemological underpinnings...
> > http://www.isworld.org/Researchdesign/drisISworld.htm
> Following is an excerpt from that web page.
> Source: http://www.isworld.org/Researchdesign/drisISworld.htm
> The page is organized as follows. We begin with a general overview of
> design research, provide its philosophical and epistemological
> underpinnings, and contrast design research in IS with traditional
> positivist and qualitative research in IS. This is followed by a section
> on design research methods that includes an extended discussion of a
> published example of design research in IS. Through the example we hope
> to make concrete all phases of the design research method: artifact
> design, construction, analysis and evaluation. This is then followed by
> a number of resource sub-sections that relate to design research in
> general as well as to design research in IS: citation lists, links to
> resources on the Internet for design researchers, calls for papers and
> links to conferences, workshops, journals and communities of practice
> for IS design research.
> The goal is to provide the IS community with useful information on
> design research both in and outside of IS. The page contains numerous
> citations permitting the interested reader to easily access original
> material on and examples of this unique and dynamic IS research paradigm. (07)
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)