more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 9594

[filed under theme 3. Truth / C. Correspondence Truth / 3. Correspondence Truth critique ]

Full Idea

Even if talk of truth as correspondence to the facts is metaphorical, it is a bad metaphor for analytic truth in a way that it is not for synthetic truth.

Gist of Idea

Correspondence to the facts is a bad account of analytic truth

Source

Timothy Williamson (The Philosophy of Philosophy [2007], 3.1)

Book Ref

Williamson,Timothy: 'The Philosophy of Philosophy' [Blackwell 2007], p.54


A Reaction

A very simple and rather powerful point. Maybe the word 'truth' should be withheld from such cases. You might say that accepted analytic truths are 'conventional'. If that is wrong, then they correspond to natural facts at a high level of abstraction.


The 13 ideas from 'The Philosophy of Philosophy'

Williamson can't base metaphysical necessity on the psychology of causal counterfactuals [Lowe on Williamson]
Intuition is neither powerful nor vacuous, but reveals linguistic or conceptual competence [Williamson]
Progress in philosophy is incremental, not an immature seeking after drama [Williamson]
Correspondence to the facts is a bad account of analytic truth [Williamson]
You might know that the word 'gob' meant 'mouth', but not be competent to use it [Williamson]
We scorn imagination as a test of possibility, forgetting its role in counterfactuals [Williamson]
There are 'armchair' truths which are not a priori, because experience was involved [Williamson]
Modal thinking isn't a special intuition; it is part of ordinary counterfactual thinking [Williamson]
There cannot be vague objects, so there may be no such thing as a mountain [Williamson]
If languages are intertranslatable, and cognition is innate, then cultures are all similar [Williamson]
Common sense and classical logic are often simultaneously abandoned in debates on vagueness [Williamson]
The realist/anti-realist debate is notoriously obscure and fruitless [Williamson]
When analytic philosophers run out of arguments, they present intuitions as their evidence [Williamson]