more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 18951

[filed under theme 3. Truth / F. Semantic Truth / 1. Tarski's Truth / a. Tarski's truth definition ]

Full Idea

For a language L there is a predicate 'true-in-L' which one can employ for all scientific purposes in place of intuitive truth, and this predicate admits of a precise definition using only the vocabulary of L itself plus set theory.

Gist of Idea

For scientific purposes there is a precise concept of 'true-in-L', using set theory

Source

Hilary Putnam (Philosophy of Logic [1971], Ch.2)

Book Ref

Putnam,Hilary: 'Philosophy of Logic' [Routledge 1972], p.21


A Reaction

He refers, of course, to Tarski's theory. I'm unclear of the division between 'scientific purposes' and the rest of life (which is why some people embrace 'minimal' theories of ordinary truth). I'm struck by set theory being a necessary feature.

Related Idea

Idea 10353 Tarskians distinguish truth from falsehood by relations between members of sets [Kusch]


The 27 ideas with the same theme [truth defined for formal languages, using 'satisfaction']:

Prior to Gödel we thought truth in mathematics consisted in provability [Gödel, by Quine]
'"It is snowing" is true if and only if it is snowing' is a partial definition of the concept of truth [Tarski]
It is convenient to attach 'true' to sentences, and hence the language must be specified [Tarski]
In the classical concept of truth, 'snow is white' is true if snow is white [Tarski]
Each interpreted T-sentence is a partial definition of truth; the whole definition is their conjunction [Tarski]
Use 'true' so that all T-sentences can be asserted, and the definition will then be 'adequate' [Tarski]
Scheme (T) is not a definition of truth [Tarski]
We don't give conditions for asserting 'snow is white'; just that assertion implies 'snow is white' is true [Tarski]
Tarski gave up on the essence of truth, and asked how truth is used, or how it functions [Tarski, by Horsten]
Tarski did not just aim at a definition; he also offered an adequacy criterion for any truth definition [Tarski, by Halbach]
Tarski enumerates cases of truth, so it can't be applied to new words or languages [Davidson on Tarski]
Tarski define truths by giving the extension of the predicate, rather than the meaning [Davidson on Tarski]
Tarski made truth relative, by only defining truth within some given artificial language [Tarski, by O'Grady]
Tarski has to avoid stating how truths relate to states of affairs [Kirkham on Tarski]
Tarskian semantics says that a sentence is true iff it is satisfied by every sequence [Tarski, by Hossack]
The statement that it is raining perfectly fits the fact that it is raining [Strawson,P]
For scientific purposes there is a precise concept of 'true-in-L', using set theory [Putnam]
The same sentence could be true in one language and meaningless in another, so truth is language-relative [Haack]
Tarski reduced truth to reference or denotation [Field,H, by Hart,WD]
Tarski really explained truth in terms of denoting, predicating and satisfied functions [Field,H]
Truth rests on Elimination ('A' is true → A) and Introduction (A → 'A' is true) [Gupta]
Tarskians distinguish truth from falsehood by relations between members of sets [Kusch]
Tarski Bi-conditional: if you'll assert φ you'll assert φ-is-true - and also vice versa [Horsten]
Tarski's hierarchy lacks uniform truth, and depends on contingent factors [Horsten]
Disquotation is bivalent [Misak]
Disquotationalism resembles a telephone directory [Misak]
Disquotations says truth is assertion, and assertion proclaims truth - but what is 'assertion'? [Misak]