[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Correspondence Theory Of Truth -- Discussion

To: Inquiry <inquiry@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ontolog <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:24:32 -0400
Message-id: <46C0DA20.E8025204@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

John,    (02)

Only a moment for quick response right now, but my sense
of this is that it makes the same point as one of Peirce's
observations about our capacity limitations, namely, that we
have no direct, independent, intuitive, or unmediated access
to objects or objective states of affairs, so we are never
really comparing the objects themselves with their signs
to see if they "correspond" in a direct denotative way,
but always comparing alternative co-interpretant signs
that we think to be representations of the same things.    (03)

Will look at your comments in more detail later.    (04)

Jon Awbrey    (05)

John F. Sowa wrote:
> Jon,
> For a man as intelligent as Kant, that statement is horribly
> confused and confusing.  Many philosophers ranging Aristotle
> to Peirce to Tarski and many others had far better statements
> that avoided any possible confusions of psychologism:
> | Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object.
> | According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order
> | to be true, must agree with the object.  Now, I can only compare the
> | object with my knowledge by this means, namely, ''by taking knowledge
> | of it''.  My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far
> | from being sufficient for truth.  For as the object is external to me,
> | and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of
> | the object agrees with my knowledge of the object.  Such a circle
> | in explanation was called by the ancients ''Diallelos''.  And the
> | logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked
> | that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal
> | should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom
> | no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man
> | who had called him as a witness is an honourable man.  (Kant, 45).
> |
> | Kant, Immanuel (1800), ''Introduction to Logic''.  Reprinted,
> | Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.), Dennis Sweet (intro.),
> | Barnes and Noble, New York, NY, 2005.
> The first step to avoid the psychological issues is just to write
> down the statement instead of keeping it in the head of the person
> who is making the observation and evaluating its truth at the
> same time.  The next step is to separate the three roles:  the
> person who writes the statement, the one who makes the observation
> (or experiment), and the one who evaluates the correspondence.
> That is elementary scientific method, which was well documented
> by Aristotle.  (See, for example, his _Generation of Animals_.)
> Even better than writing the statement in a natural language is to
> draw it in a diagram (i.e., a version of geometry) or some other
> version of mathematics.  Kant certainly should have known better,
> since he had not only studied Newtonian mechanics, he had taught
> it for many years, and he had worked out and published the
> mathematical principles for the now widely accepted theory of
> how the solar system formed from a cloud of gas and dust.
> Peirce, by the way, had stated some excellent formulations of
> the correspondence principle in connection with his discussions
> of diagrammatic reasoning.  As I said before, Peirce had assumed
> the correspondence principle, and he noted that the main issues
> of scientific method involved the observing, testing, and
> evaluating the correspondence by a community of scientists.
> John    (06)

CC: Inquiry List, Ontolog Forum    (07)

inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (08)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>