The Correspondence Theory of Truth

[@MrFlightDirector]

The discussion about the possible correspondence (or not) of thinking and language was very interesting.

[@naserrahman1877]

0:46: Correspondence Theory 4:22 Picture Theory 8:29 Betrand Russell 9:01 Representation Theory 11:15 Caution

[@NeryViridianaMartinezOrozco]

Hi! I'm from Monterrey Mexico, I want to thank you for your explanation.

[@Anku_206]

Thanyou sir for excellent explanation 😊

[@plastic2666]

Thank you.

[@VROSHARD]

3:40 thank you I was writing a paper and was having a hard time wrapping my head over it this explains it better

[@zahidqureshi9573]

Best explanation 👌

[@brendanwalsh3354]

I read this title as 'The Conspiracy Theory of "truth"' and vastly prefer that irony

[@NaelaTV]

Tamsak done po thanks for sharing this video content friend of pambansa #pambansang kusina

[@gerhitchman]

The problem with the CTT is that there's no way to know whether a belief (a) is justified (e.g. well argued for and respecting available evidence) or (b) corresponds to reality. There's also an issue of how something with propositional content (e.g. a belief) can "correspond" to a non-propositional object (e.g. something in the world).

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

There’s other problems as well. For example, the many relations problem. When we try to understand what it means to correspond, we can come up with at least two senses of the correspondence relation. One is a truth-making relation and the other is a false-making relation. If we want to say that only a truth-making relation counts as correspondence then we run into trouble because it renders the theory of truth circular, eg: a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds in a truth-making relation to a state of affairs in reality. In other words, truth is that which is true. If you already know what’s true then what is the theory of truth even doing? It’s supposed to help distinguish between true and false propositions but if it’s circular, it doesn’t seem equipped to do that job. If we say that truth-making and false-making relations both count as correspondence then we also cannot distinguish between what’s true and what’s false through reliance on correspondence theory.

[@neilnelson79]

‘Snow is white’ if and only if snow is white' (via Tarski) says nothing without some additional interpretation for the second 'snow is white' that Bonevac gives as the Correspondence Theory of Truth of which Bonevac makes a fair presentation. Bonevac mentions functions that provide the detailed correspondence. Let's look at these functions a little closer. The functions must be external to language by which a person through their sensory abilities performs the correspondence functions between the sentence, a language artifact, and reality beyond language. Now Bonevac may perform the correspondence between the sentence and the reality and assert to me that snow is white. To Bonevac, the statement is true. But is it true to me? If I have not performed the correspondence, I only have Bonevac's assertion. And so under the requirement that a sentence is true under correspondence, I can not say, since I have not performed the correspondence, that Bonevac's assertion is true or false. To make an assertion implies that there are people other than the author of the assertion to which the assertion is made. So now truth, in the sense that we are saying to someone that such and such is true, requires agreement between people on language, the correspondence functions, and on an ability to perform the correspondence with reality. But note that under the prior set of requirements for truth between people, truth is merely a confirmation of what would be known without requiring an assertion for that truth. That is, each person would need to perform the correspondence themselves with the net result only being confirmation without the communication of a new truth. A person might make an assertion in the sense that it directs another to make the confirmation, but this is not the usual sense of how we make assertions. We just say such and such is true without expecting the other person to run out and perform the correspondence. What we commonly have is an authority, say Bonevac, whose assertions we accept as true without regard to confirmation, where we do not confirm because of an insufficiency in ability or time. Truth is frequently merely that some group of people agree that an assertion is true. It is truth by agreement without a correspondence confirmation. The Correspondence Theory of Truth makes a strong basis for asserting truth. Our problem is that for likely the majority of assertions we deal with, the Correspondence Theory of Truth is not efficient. What we have are conditional truths, truths with more or less likelihood. In addition to the Correspondence Theory of Truth we need methods to evaluate our likelihoods.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

"To make an assertion implies that there are people other than the author of the assertion to which the assertion is made" No, it doesn't.

[@opinionate-by-thesyllogist]

OK... Let me get this straight. The Correspondance Theory of Truth says that the proposition "snow is white" is true iff the proposition corresponds to the reality that snow is white. The proposition that "snow is white" is neccessarily true to you and any other who operates under the linguistic framework the defines the snow as having the property of whiteness and "white" as a name of a pre-philosophical qualia. If people agree to the definition of "snow", "is", and "white", then they neccessarily have the ability to perform correspondence. So what is your point?

[@neilnelson79]

@@opinionate-by-thesyllogist I was making a distinction between those who can make that correspondence, those that live where snow falls, and those that do not, those that live where there is no snow at all.

[@joshuatorres3342]

CUTE KITTY!!!

[@Ginab3001]

I understand/see what he means because the English language has so many words with dual meanings.

[@musbahalassouli3399]

Ya because we only understand the world through our own meaning domain.. But where dose meaning come from? From Language or thoughts or both ?

[@luisathought]

👏❤️⭐️

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

You’re s great, great teacher. One question: did your picture of trump turn out to correspond with how he is in the world?

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

I stay away from politics on this channel. But you're raising an interesting question independent of that. My answer would tend to be along the lines of, "In some ways, yes; in other ways, no." Nietzsche and, in general, perspectivists, tend to think that sort of thing is almost always what happens when we try to describe the world in language. We simplify, and our thoughts correspond to the world in some respects and not in others. The world turns out to be too complex to be understood in words. I'm about to release a video, perhaps next Monday, on the logic of perspectivism as found in Jainism. It gives us something like the intellectual tools of tolerance and respectful disagreement.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

@@PhiloofAlexandria I imagine then in some ways yes refers to him being an amoral narcissistic sociopath and in some ways no meant that he might be somehow better for the world than Hilary Clinton?

[@bimsherwood7006]

45000 subs and less than 50 likes in 5 hours? Tough crowd.

[@meowwwww6350]

What's your view on Marxism?

[@Catholictomherbert]

If your a Marxist what’s your argument against “Free market”?

[@meowwwww6350]

@@Catholictomherbert I think that the market should be controlled by the government but still without losing the essence of a free market. And it should cope with socialism and Marxism If not then free market is crap . Only if" not"

[@Catholictomherbert]

@@meowwwww6350 do you know the name of the position that’s “anti money”. And Fyi I meet a lot of so called experts on “society” that believe we still live in a “agrarian” culture like the Romans lol

[@meowwwww6350]

@@Catholictomherbert can you please tell me what you said again in simple terms cause I'm a little slow in English.

[@Fronzel41]

@@meowwwww6350 It should be controlled yet free? Good luck with that.

[@Alex-rr7qc]

So this is basically a bunch of very smart people tryng to understand how the language works? For an outsider it sounds like "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" but with fancy words

[@scottstedeford7575]

When the process is used to dissect common things, like trees and cats and mats, it appears to be a frivolous venture by “smart” people with too much time on their hands. But when you consider the more subtle and complex ideas that are thrown our way, such as which politician you should vote for or what is the best investment to make with your hard-earned money, then there nothing more valuable then learning and applying the theories of logic. Politicians and scammers, for example, succeed on the basis that most people lack this knowledge and skill.

[@bumlace]

Just spent 10 minutes trying to write a cat in the hat joke for the comments, sigh. I got nothing 🤣