[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 22:40:16 -0400
Message-id: <46C26790.E7073D8@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa    (02)

Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00348.html    (03)

To correct a reference in the above post, I should have written this:    (04)

| Here is the material on Peirce's angle that I wrote up
| for the Wikipedia article on pragmatic theories of truth,
| now forked over to the Centiare article on the same subject:
| http://www.centiare.com/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth#Peirce    (05)

Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00355.html    (06)

JS: I wholeheartedly endorse all of Peirce's statements in
    your recent quotes.  And I would point out that he does
    not reject the correspondence theory of truth in any of
    them.  On the contrary, he shows how to strengthen it.    (07)

JA: Can we really and truly dissociate the semantics of terms
    like "duration", "length", and "mass" from the epistemological
    stance of a particular frame of reference, or the operational
    resources of the apparatus that we use to measure them?    (08)

JS: Of course not.  The semantics of those terms depends on the
    details of the measurement process.  But recognizing that
    point does not invalidate the correspondence principle.    (09)

JS: I also agree that Peirce's semeiotic and the related issues
    of pragmaticism constitute the best methodology ever proposed
    for dealing with the epistemological issues, the correspondence
    issues, and many other issues in an integrated way.    (010)

JS: Focus attention on epistemology and the methodology of doing
    science by observation, experiment, measurement, and testing.
    Show how Peirce's semeiotics can clarify those issues.  But
    don't get hung up on attacking the correspondence theory.
    Peirce didn't attack it -- he changed the subject.    (011)

John,    (012)

I quoted Kant and Peirce in their own words, and I tried
to make my "compare and contrast" as accurate as I could.    (013)

Give me some time to review what I've written so far and
I'll try to see what sounds like an attack, but I do not
see that as my aim, for all sorts of reasons that I have
yet to explain.    (014)

In the meantime let this be our maxim:
Not to bury the correspondence theory
but to analyze it, terminable or else.    (015)

Jon Awbrey    (016)

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    (017)

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    (018)

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