RE: The Nature of Truth

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sat May 12 2001 - 13:15:13 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:09:00 -0700
>From: Lee Corbin <>
>Mitch wrote
>>Ben wrote:
><< Real truth seems to be an interesting mix of absolutism
>and relativism either extreme attitude is an unproductive one.
>I think that a mix of absolutism and relativism is best.
>Funnily enough, this is what most humans have evolved to profess.>>
>>That seems to best describe the universe, doesn't it?
>This still sounds like an attitude of surrender to me. Tarski
>nailed down what we should mean by "truth". I agree with those
>who advocate the "correspondence theory", which is essentially
>that minds map features of the universe, and do so with varying
>precision. Highly accurate maps we call true, and inaccurate
>maps we call false. We shouldn't give up trying to get our
>maps as accurate as possible.
>We only need keep in mind, as the great Count Alfred Korzybski
>said, "the map is not the territory", (Science and Sanity, 1933).
There are three criteria for ascribing validity to truth-claims; they are:
1) correspondence with the referent observed world
2) external coherence with contiguous and/or related truths, and
3) internal consistency (the truth-claim cannot be self-contradictory)
All three of these criteria must be met for a truth-claim to be considered valid, and where 1) or 2) occurs, the others seem to occur also. #3 may occur in untrue statements, but it is never absent from true ones.
>Lee Korbynsky

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:04 MDT