[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Inquiry <inquiry@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ontolog <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:24:41 -0400
Message-id: <46C1AD19.A5996D7C@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

CM = Chris Menzel
HS = Henry Story
IJ = Ingvar Johansson
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa    (02)

Tracking back far enough to remember how we got into this:    (03)

JA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00002.html
HS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Aug/0025.html
JA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00317.html
JS: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00318.html
JA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00320.html
CM: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00321.html
JA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00332.html
IJ: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00335.html
JA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00341.html
IJ: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00344.html
JA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00345.html    (04)

IJ: The correspondence theory of truth is not semantically mystical.    (05)

I never said it was mystical.  I simply reported the concurring
observations of Peirce, Kant, and some antic school of skeptics
that the definition of truth as correspondence was a "circular",
a "nominal", or a "purely verbal" definition of truth.    (06)

JA: From the epistemological stance of everyday life and the semantics
    of ordinary language, it makes good sense for me to say that what
    I see outside my window where I am at the moment corresponds to
    what has been said when I say, "the sun rose this morning".    (07)

JA: But what it means to say, "the sun rose this morning", is a thing
    that can take several thousand years of human scientific inquiry
    to clarify just what it means for a given application, context,
    intent, or objective.    (08)

JA: And what we have been talking about here is part of a project that
    began some 50 odd years ago, just since I've been paying attention,
    that is trying to bring machines with absolutely zero innate sense
    of our everyday life and our ordinary language into a condition of --
    not just confluence with but -- enlightening interaction with them.    (09)

JA: I think that will take a little more work on our parts ...    (010)

IJ: Sure.  But there is no need for you to start
    to discuss whether the correspondence theory
    of truth is semantically meaningful or not.    (011)

I guess there is no need to discuss it -- if we're just passing
the time of day -- but if we are working to the purpose of said
project, then there is no way to avoid analyzing the conditions
of the possibility of its being semantically meaningful.    (012)

Jon Awbrey    (013)

CC: Inquiry List, Ontolog Forum    (014)

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    (015)

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    (016)

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