|
19076
|
Coherence theories differ over the coherence relation, and over the set of proposition with which to cohere [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
Coherence theories of truth differ on their accounts of the coherence relation, and on their accounts of the set (or sets) of propositions with which true propositions occur (the 'specified set').
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Coherence is clearly more than consistency or mutual entailment, and I like to invoke explanation. The set has to be large, or the theory is absurd (as two absurdities can 'cohere'). So very large, or very very large, or maximally large?
|
|
19077
|
Two propositions could be consistent with your set, but inconsistent with one another [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is unsatisfactory for the coherence relation to be consistency, because two propositions could be consistent with a 'specified set', and yet be inconsistent with each other. That would imply they are both true, which is impossible.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not convinced by this. You first accept P because it is consistent with the set; then Q turns up, which is consistent with everything in the set except P. So you have to choose between them, and might eject P. Your set was too small.
|
|
19078
|
Coherence with actual beliefs, or our best beliefs, or ultimate ideal beliefs? [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
One extreme for the specified set is the largest consistent set of propositions currently believed by actual people. A moderate position makes it the limit of people's enquiries. The other extreme is what would be believed by an omniscient being.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
One not considered is the set of propositions believed by each individual person. Thoroughgoing relativists might well embrace that one. Peirce and Putnam liked the moderate one. I'm taken with the last one, since truth is an ideal, not a phenomenon.
|
|
9216
|
Each area of enquiry, and its source, has its own distinctive type of necessity [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The three sources of necessity - the identity of things, the natural order, and the normative order - have their own peculiar forms of necessity. The three main areas of human enquiry - metaphysics, science and ethics - each has its own necessity.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Varieties of Necessity [2002], 6)
|
|
A reaction:
I would treat necessity in ethics with caution, if it is not reducible to natural or metaphysical necessity. Fine's proposal is interesting, but I did not find it convincing, especially in its view that metaphysical necessity doesn't intrude into nature.
|
|
19074
|
Are truth-condtions other propositions (coherence) or features of the world (correspondence)? [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
For the coherence theory of truth, the truth conditions of propositions consist in other propositions. The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are ... objective features of the world.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
It is obviously rather important for your truth-conditions theory of meaning that you are clear about your theory of truth. A correspondence theory is evidently taken for granted, even in possible worlds versions.
|
|
19082
|
Coherence truth suggests truth-condtions are assertion-conditions, which need knowledge of justification [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
Coherence theorists can argue that the truth conditions of a proposition are those under which speakers tend to assert it, ...and that speakers can only make a practice of asserting a proposition under conditions they can recognise as justifying it.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This sounds rather verificationist, and hence wrong, since if you then asserted anything for which you didn't know the justification, that would remove its truth, and thus make it meaningless.
|
|
9215
|
Causation is easier to disrupt than logic, so metaphysics is part of nature, not vice versa [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
It would be harder to break P-and-Q implying P than the connection between cause and effect. This difference in strictness means it is more plausible that natural necessities include metaphysical necessities, than vice versa.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Varieties of Necessity [2002], 6)
|
|
A reaction:
I cannot see any a priori grounds for the claim that causation is more easily disrupted than logic. It seems to be based on the strategy of inferring possibilities from what can be imagined, which seems to me to lead to wild misunderstandings.
|