Suppose we said that a sentence is 'true' if it corresponds to some state of affairs in the world. For example, the sentence 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. On such a view, we are defining truth as correspondence. But how could we possibly know any such correspopndence exists? So there are good arguments for saying we can't define truth as anything. On such a view, truth is what we would call a 'primitive'. Other things (like, say, beliefs) depend on truth, but truth doesn't depend on anything. It just is. This new article explores such arguments. One key question is, if we define truth as a primitive, how does it relate to detecting falsehoods? Do we just recognize when things are true or false? Another question: is truth a property of things? If so, how? If not, what is it? These are all core questions for someone working in knowledge and learning. If we want to promote 'the truth' in society, we need to have some understanding of just what it is we want to promote.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
