Re: Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Posted by gepr on Oct 17, 2017; 6:54pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Truth-Hunh-What-is-it-good-for-Absolutely-Nothing-tp7590706p7590751.html

Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask him if his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect to what you or I think"?  Dave?

FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about what one *thinks* and more about the platform/context/truth-preserving-machine in which the people find themselves squirming around.  If such truth-scope is defined in that way, then we're a lot closer to Peirce's concept of reality being whatever consequences our language *deduces* to ... whatever sentences are evaluated as true in that language.  And, here Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, and you change what evaluates to true in that language.


On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we get it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because there are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and the mind stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, there is a truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I think, as well as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we think is true of the world.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove