more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 19098

[filed under theme 3. Truth / H. Deflationary Truth / 2. Deflationary Truth ]

Full Idea

We must not move seamlessly from the thought that the correspondence theory must be deflated to the thought that any theory of truth must be deflated.

Gist of Idea

Deflating the correspondence theory doesn't entail deflating all the other theories

Source

Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 2)

Book Ref

'New Pragmatists', ed/tr. Misak,Cheryl [OUP 2009], p.73


A Reaction

This rather good essay offers the idea that Peircean pragmatic approaches to truth can meet the deflationary desires of the opponents of correspondence, without jettisoning all the crucial naturalistic connections with reality. Interesting.


The 32 ideas with the same theme [truth has no nature, and refers to nothing]:

True and false statements can use exactly the same words [Anon (Diss)]
Semantics is a very modest discipline which solves no real problems [Tarski]
We cannot analyse the concept of 'truth', because it is simply a mark that a sentence is asserted [Ayer]
'Truth' may only apply within a theory [Kuhn]
Tarski is not a disquotationalist, because you can assign truth to a sentence you can't quote [Davidson]
Disquotation only accounts for truth if the metalanguage contains the object language [Davidson]
We need the concept of truth for defeasible reasoning [Pollock]
Horwich's deflationary view is novel, because it relies on propositions rather than sentences [Horwich, by Davidson]
No deflationary conception of truth does justice to the fact that we aim for truth [Horwich]
The deflationary picture says believing a theory true is a trivial step after believing the theory [Horwich]
Truth is a useful concept for unarticulated propositions and generalisations about them [Horwich]
'True' is only occasionally useful, as in 'everything Fermat believed was true' [Burgess/Rosen]
Deflationism seems to block philosophers' main occupation, asking metatheoretical questions [Engel]
Deflationism cannot explain why we hold beliefs for reasons [Engel]
Deflationism just says there is no property of being truth [Merricks]
Truth lets us assent to sentences we can't explicitly exhibit [Azzouni]
Inferential deflationism says truth has no essence because no unrestricted logic governs the concept [Horsten]
Deflationism skips definitions and models, and offers just accounts of basic laws of truth [Horsten]
Deflationism concerns the nature and role of truth, but not its laws [Horsten]
Deflationism says truth isn't a topic on its own - it just concerns what is true [Horsten]
Deflation: instead of asserting a sentence, we can treat it as an object with the truth-property [Horsten]
This deflationary account says truth has a role in generality, and in inference [Horsten]
Deflationist truth is an infinitely disjunctive property [Rami]
Deflating the correspondence theory doesn't entail deflating all the other theories [Misak]
Deflationism isn't a theory of truth, but an account of its role in natural language [Misak]
Deflationism says truth is a disquotation device to express generalisations, adding no new knowledge [Halbach]
The main problem for deflationists is they can express generalisations, but not prove them [Halbach]
Deflationists say truth is just for expressing infinite conjunctions or generalisations [Halbach]
Some say deflationism is axioms which are conservative over the base theory [Halbach]
Compositional Truth CT proves generalisations, so is preferred in discussions of deflationism [Halbach]
Deflationists say truth merely serves to express infinite conjunctions [Halbach]
Deflationary theories reject analysis of truth in terms of truth-conditions [Young,JO]