John F. Sowa wrote:
>JA> ... but until we say much more exactly what sort of
> > "correspondence" we have in mind -- Peirce, after all,
> > speaks of "triple crrespondences" as key ingredients of
> > his theory of signs -- we have said very little at all.
> Of course. But trivializing the correspondence theory
> is a serious mistake because there are many people who
> don't even admit that.
> Take things one step at a time. If (p & q) is the case, then
> don't condemn somebody for merely saying p. Peirce never did
> that. He accepted what they said, and then added q. (02)
Moi? -- I took my baby steps a long^3 time ago ... (03)
Peirce did agree with Kant that the correspondence theory gives
us a nominal definition of truth, a "definition in name only".
Is that "condemnation"? -- sounds a bit over the top to me.
Is that "trivializing"? -- in the sense that a nominal def
is the next best thing to a tautology, may be. (04)
> If you waste your ammunition on people who are half right,
> you won't have enough left for those who are totally wrong.
> John (05)
It is sufficient for the totally wrong to prevail that
the half-right do nothing to discover the missing half. (06)
Jon Awbrey (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)