Pragmatic Truth • Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 25
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/15/pragmatic-truth-discussion-25/

Re: OEIS Wiki | Correspondence Theory Of Truth
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Correspondence_Theory_Of_Truth

All,

Richard Saunders writes:

❝Given that “facts are basically combinations of objects together
with their properties or relations; so the fact that Fido barks
is the combination of an object (i.e., Fido) with one of Fido's
properties (that he barks)”, if the object and the property are
real, then the correspondence theory of truth seems adequate for
most purposes. But the question remains, what is “real”? I like
Phillip Dick's suggestion that reality is what remains when you
stop believing in it.❞

Dear Richard,

Let me clear up a few things about that section of the Correspondence Theory
article you quote above. The style of it tells me other Wikipedians probably
had a bigger hand in it than I did — for my part I most likely took it as a
thumbnail sketch of the conventional view, a sop to the two‑headed dogma of
analytic philosoppy, if you will.

Pragmatic treatments of truth begin from a decidedly different standpoint
and make a radical departure from correspondence accounts. But there is
nothing new about the pragmatic view, as we can see from the way Kant and
even the Ancients had already criticized correspondence theories.

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/L6pMQA

[Jon Awbrey]

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 26
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/16/pragmatic-truth-discussion-26/

Re: OEIS Wiki | Correspondence Theory Of Truth
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Correspondence_Theory_Of_Truth

All,

Richard Saunders continues:

❝The pragmatic theory of truth seems to be a correspondence theory
in which all the elements (objects, properties, relations, signs,
correspondence, reality, etc) are qualified or defined in accordance
with the pragmatic maxim. Is that a fair summary?❞

Dear Richard,

In Peirce's logic as normative semiotics everything swims in
a medium of triadic sign relations. One can say a triadic sign
relation involves a “triple correspondence” among objects, signs,
and their interpretant signs, if one likes, and Peirce occasionally
expresses it that way, but the all‑important difference lies in the
fact that triadic relations cannot be reduced to any congeries or
compound of dyadic relations.

Resources —

Pragmatic Maxim
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/07/pragmatic-maxim-a/

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/28/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-6/

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/5AEm1z

[Jon Awbrey]

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 27
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/17/pragmatic-truth-discussion-27/

Re: Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 26
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/16/pragmatic-truth-discussion-26/

Richard Saunders continues:

❝Agreed, but given those qualifications (the perspective on
facts qualified by the pragmatic maxim and the perspective on
correspondence qualified by irreducible triadic relations) the
pragmatic theory of truth is still a specialized correspondence
theory.❞

Dear Richard,

It is always possible to expand the coverage of any term
until it becomes vacuous, but that is not the sense in which
“correspondence theory of truth” is normally used. The usual
suspects are always dyadic relations, the “mirror of nature”,
Russell's “isomorphism theory”, and iconographies of that ilk.

Resources —

Pragmatic Maxim
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/07/pragmatic-maxim-a/

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/28/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-6/

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/Lx41qn

[Jon Awbrey]

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 28
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/19/pragmatic-truth-discussion-28/

Re: Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 26 & 27
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/16/pragmatic-truth-discussion-26/
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/07/17/pragmatic-truth-discussion-27/

Richard Saunders continues:

❝My intention was not to expand the correspondence theory of truth
but to narrow it with specific constraints. I think of it as
an evolution of the theory making it a progressively accurate
representation of reality in that form. That said, I think
earlier, simpler forms of the correspondence theory are still
good enough for government work and for the girls I go with. 😃❞

Dear Richard,

As a veteran of the Wikipedia Truth Theory Wars of 2005–2007 I can tell
you the restriction of “correspondence theory of truth” to dyadic truth
predicates is deeply entrenched in the popular imagination and we have
no choice but leave the field to established usage.

Even if we take Peirce's hint to recognize the “triple correspondences”
of triadic sign relations as a category unto itself, they are almost
invariably misinterpreted as logical conjunctions of three dyadic
relations. That of course misses the point of what Peirce is
trying to point out.

Taking the long history of “failures to communicate” into consideration,
a less misleading generic term might be “relational theories of truth”.
There is a residual ambiguity owing to the different ways people interpret
the word “relation”, either (1) a mathematical object or (2) a syntactic
entity. But that's about the best we can do in so many words. When it
comes to names for the species, then, we may enumerate monadic, dyadic,
and triadic relational theories of truth. Which brings us back to the
top of the thread.

Resources —

Pragmatic Maxim
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/07/pragmatic-maxim-a/

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/28/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-6/

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/V1P9jn