{"id":11456,"date":"2010-07-18T14:26:11","date_gmt":"2010-07-18T14:26:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/07\/18\/but-is-it-true\/"},"modified":"2010-07-18T14:26:11","modified_gmt":"2010-07-18T14:26:11","slug":"but-is-it-true","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/07\/18\/but-is-it-true\/","title":{"rendered":"But Is It True?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Peter and I were having lunch with a pretty lady yesterday.&#0160; While recounting some paranormal experiences, he expressed doubt as to whether they were true.&#0160; The lady, quite sympathetic to the experiences and their contents, but having come under the influence of the PoMo crowd, piped up, &quot;There is no truth.&quot;&#0160; Peter shot back, &quot;So it is true that there is no truth?&quot;<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Peter&#39;s response was &#39;knee-jerk,&#39; reflexive, not reflective.&#0160; He didn&#39;&#39;t need to reflect.&#0160;&#0160;His was&#0160;a stock response, but none the worse for being stock or easily come by.&#0160; It is a prepared line that you should all have at the ready when confronted with&#0160; PoMo nonsense.&#0160; Not that it will do you much good with the PoMo crowd.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">The probative force of Peter&#39;s riposte is devastating.&#0160; What&#39;s amazing, though, is that the Pomo types are not moved by it.&#0160; I think this shows that truth is not their concern.&#0160; Something else is, power perhaps. It is no surprise that leftism is alive and well within the precincts of PoMo.&#0160; I&#39;d have to think about it some more, but &#39;conservative post-modernist&#39; smacks of being an oxymoron.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Let S be a declarative sentence.&#0160; Then surely<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><em><font face=\"Georgia\">E. &#39;S&#39; is true iff S.<\/font><\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">The equivalence schema&#0160;(E)&#0160;doesn&#39;t say much.&#0160; But what it says suffices to refute the claim that there is no truth.&#0160; For anyone who asserts &#39;There is no truth&#39; makes an assertion which is equivalent to &quot;&#39;There is no truth&#39; is true.&quot;&#0160; And so truth comes back into the picture.&#0160; Truth, she&#39;s a wily bitch.&#0160; Drive her out of the front door, she comes in through the back.&#0160; And I don&#39;t think it matters how minimalist&#0160; is your theory&#0160;of truth.&#0160; My argument does not assume that truth is a metaphysically substantive property.&#0160; Even if no <em>property<\/em>&#0160; at all corresponds to the <em>predicate<\/em> &#39; is true,&#39; that predicate has a sense.&#0160; If it had no sense, then (E) would be gibberish, like <\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\"><em>E*. &#39;S&#39; &#0160;is schmue iff S.<\/em><\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">I&#39;d have to think about it some more, but it looks as if the equivalence schema by itself suffices to refute the PoMo nonsense that there is no truth.&#0160; For even if there is no property of truth, and truth is merely the sense of the predicate &#39;is true,&#39; that sense cannot be denied.&#0160; It&#39;s always&#0160;and necessarily along for the ride.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\"><\/font>&#0160;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Peter and I were having lunch with a pretty lady yesterday.&#0160; While recounting some paranormal experiences, he expressed doubt as to whether they were true.&#0160; The lady, quite sympathetic to the experiences and their contents, but having come under the influence of the PoMo crowd, piped up, &quot;There is no truth.&quot;&#0160; Peter shot back, &quot;So &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/07\/18\/but-is-it-true\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;But Is It True?&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[228],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-truth"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}