[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Inquiry <inquiry@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:18:10 -0400
Message-id: <46C31932.966DF769@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa    (02)

JA: In the meantime let this be our maxim:
    Not to bury the correspondence theory
    but to analyze it, terminable or else.    (03)

JS: Peirce's intention was the opposite of
    terminating the correspondence theory:    (04)

JS: He made the point that all of our so-called
    knowledge is fallible, but some aspects are
    better established than others.  Scientists
    have achieved some very close correspondences
    between language (or other sign systems) and
    some aspects of reality, but a complete and
    perfect correspondence is a goal that may take
    humanity (and whatever species they may evolve
    into or be replaced by) an open-ended amount
    of time.    (05)

John,    (06)

That was just a joke I could not resist,
caching a cue off one of Freud's titles.    (07)

I haven't really gotten around to a full exposition my own
take on this yet -- don't get excited, it won't happen here --
mostly referring to some recycled bytes from Wikipedia, where
the order of the day is "No Original Research" (NOR) and where
"Original Research" is anything that a college freshperson might
read in the second chapter of that first book that he or she has
really and truly been meaning to read on the subject.  So none of
this should be shocking to anyone here.    (08)

I do not equate analysis, criticism, examination, and inquiry
with some form of attack, however, and it is not an attack on
the primality of 2 if we observe that there are primes beyond.    (09)

If and when we do get around to analyzing the different concepts
of correspondence that are rather vaguely invoked in the variety
of correspondence theories of truth that we find in the field, I
think we'll discover that there is no point interrogating one of
these theories until we have clarified to some degree the notion
of correspondence that is invoked in it, perhaps to the point of
a definition, operational or otherwise.    (010)

One of the things that we do in mathematical modeling or
set-theoretic semantics, whatever one chooses to call it,
is to single out a set ''X'' that is intended to be used
as material for additional constructions, then set forth
a set of ''k''-adic relations, for ''k'' = 0, 1, 2, 3, …,
then assign a specific relation to each predicate symbol
in our theory, ontology, doctrine, whatever one calls it.    (011)

Along those lines, one of the very first things that we
need to do for our favorite notion of correspondence is
to assign it a ''k'' and a local habitation in this set
of relations that we elected to use for building models.    (012)

I think that's about as far as we've gotten up this point
in our attempts to attach some semblance of solid meaning
to our use of the word "correspondence".    (013)

Jon Awbrey    (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>