Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kerry edwards
Back to the false/unverifiable issue. I think there's a difference between being able to prove a claim false or true and being meaningful. There are meaningful claims that may not be verifiable.(at least in the sense that 'the cat is on the mat' is verifiable)
|
Consider the following argument:
Larry is taller than Moe, and Moe is taller than Curly, therefore Larry is taller than Curly.
(I don't remember who is actually taller than whom, but suppose for the purposes of this argument that the premises are true)
It's meaningful, verifiable, but false.
To put it succinctly, yes, I do believe that we have meaningful conversations.
No, I don't believe that truth has anything to do with the real world in the Tarskian correspondense sense, ie., The cat is on the mat <-> the cat is on the mat.
I believe that truth which requires analysis of meaning is merely agreement.
Verifiability is just a matter of pointing to the cat, which is laying on the mat, and nodding. These words we use in their physical form, as typed out on this page, have nothing in common with the actual cat laying on the mat. We attach meaning first to these words and then point so in a sense, meaning is necessary for truth. I'm fine with that, we're meaningful beings who have meaningful conversations.
I am an anti-realist.
The only absolute truth is logical truth and that's independent of space and time. The other stuff is meaningful but not absolute. I'm fine with that. I have a good time talking with people.