[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ontolog <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Inquiry <inquiry@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:02:04 -0400
Message-id: <46C33F9C.370E9F51@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

IJ = Ingvar Johansson
JA = Jon Awbrey    (02)

JA: In what "frame of reference" shall I evaluate your objection?
    I tried to follow fashion by invoking analogies from physics.
    Relative to that frame of reference, I can only iterate what
    all my physics professors dinned into my skull, to wit, that
    older common sense notions of magnitude had simply ceased to
    make sense any more lacking reference to an observer's frame
    and the specified operations commonly known as "measurements"
    that are an absolute, er, relative "must" to pin operational
    definitions to the given magnitudes.  That's how they taught,
    but I will refrain from echoing all the ridicule they heaped
    on former generations of deluded philosophers, prescientists,
    and especially common sense normal folks who ever languished
    in the dissociative styles of thought that dreamed otherwise.    (03)

JA: Ingvar sought to evade the point of that analogy by shifting
    the frame of reference to everyday epistemology and ordinary
    language acceptability.  The very attempt to change the fact
    by shifting the frame of reference has just proved the point.    (04)

IJ: 1. I did not try to evade any lesson to be learnt from the theory
       of special relativity. I tried to point out the following.  We
       learn (both as children and as adults) many concepts (everyday
       as well as scientific) by means of meeting protypical examples
       or performing prototypical actions.  In case of understanding
       the concept of 'the correspondence theory of truth' there
       is a prototypcial example available:  the correspondence
       or non-correspondence between ordinary perceptions on
       the one hand and statements in ordinary language
       on the other.    (05)

IJ: 2. I think it is fair to say that "older common sense"
       implicitly had a Newtonian notion of absolute space
       and time, and that the special theory of relativity (SR)
       proved this notion to be obsolete.  But this does does mean
       that SR proved either that *epistemological relativism* is true
       or that *operationalism*  in the philosophy of science is true.
       What SR does mean, among other things, is (i) that each inertial
       frame of reference is just like the absolute space of Newtonian
       mechanics, and (ii) that there is a special formula (the Lorentz
       transformations) by means of which measurement values obtained in
       one inertial frame of reference can be translated into the values
       that would be obtained in another such frame.  This story is
       neither a threat to a fallibilist epistemology nor to the
       correspondence theory of truth.    (06)

Ingvar,    (07)

Apologies for my attribution of a motive -- it was only
my first guess as to why we appeared to be talking past
each other on what I thought was a long-familiar lesson.    (08)

There's a whole lot of traffic to cache up on from this morning,
so I'll save a more detailed response for the cool of the night.
Up till now I've really tried to limit myself to the historical
review -- more like a sampler of favorite quotations, I suppose --
part of this discussion, but I hope to have clarified where I'd
like to be going with it in my last response to John Sowa, here:    (09)

http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00363.html    (010)

So I'll leave it there till later tonight ...    (011)

Jon Awbrey    (012)

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    (013)

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    (014)

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