{"id":70,"date":"2007-09-07T19:05:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-07T23:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/?p=70"},"modified":"2007-09-07T19:05:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-07T23:05:00","slug":"some-reflections-on-truth-and-assertion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/2007\/09\/some-reflections-on-truth-and-assertion\/","title":{"rendered":"Some Reflections on Truth and Assertion"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to the ‘redundancy’ theory of truth, “p is true” has the same content as “p”. The predicate “is true” adds nothing and so is eliminable salva significatione<\/span> (without change of meaning). It seems to me that this position is deeply, though instructively, mistaken.<\/p>\n

The basic mistake of the redundancy theory, as I see it, is to confuse “p” with the assertion<\/span> of “p”. To distinguish these symbolically, I’ll use “p!” to stand for the assertion of “p”. To see that these are distinct contrast the question <\/span>“Is p true?” with the judgment <\/span>“p is true”. The former does not assert “p” but the latter does and can therefore be identified with “p!”:<\/p>\n

“p is true” = “p!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is by conflating “p” with “p!” that the redundancy theorist gets his result:<\/p>\n

“p is true” = “p!”
“p” = “p!”
Therefore, “p is true” = “p”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But once we distinguish between the question and the judgment, the fallacy becomes clear. The question “Is p true?” does not assert “p” but leaves its truth value problematic. Let’s represent this with “p?” Clearly the “p” in “p?” is the same<\/span> as the one in “p!” Hence, “p” by itself cannot be equivalent in meaning to “p!”, and with that the redundancy theory of truth fails.<\/p>\n

What then does it mean for “p” to be true? We can answer this by looking at the relation of the question “Is p true?” to the judgment “p is true.” Clearly the latter is an answer <\/span>to the question: “Is p true?” Yes, “p is true.” The judgment doesn’t make<\/span> “p” true or constitute<\/span> the truth of “p”. Rather, it follows upon a recognition<\/span> of the fact that “p” was true all along.<\/p>\n

For example, suppose I’m wondering about whether the proposition “There is no OJ in my fridge” is true. So long as I have serious doubts about this, I will not assert<\/span> the proposition. But if I go downstairs, open the fridge, and take a look, I can observe whether the “There is no OJ in my fridge” corresponds to<\/span> the facts or not. In so doing, I am discover <\/span>whether the proposition is true. If an appropriate search yields no OJ, then I am in a position to assert <\/span>or judge <\/span>that “There is no OJ in my fridge” is true. Again, the judgment doesn’t constitute the truth of the proposition. It adds nothing to the proposition’s truth conditions. It simply reflects my recognition that its truth conditions are fulfilled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

According to the ‘redundancy’ theory of truth, “p is true” has the same content as “p”. The predicate “is true” adds nothing and so is eliminable salva significatione (without change of meaning). It seems to me that this position is deeply, though instructively, mistaken. The basic mistake of the redundancy theory, as I see it,\u2026 Read More »<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}