>
> > >But you're then just using "true" to mean "work"
> >
> > No I'm not. I use "true" to mean "true," as understood, for less, by
>Tarksi.
> > For each sentence "p" in a scientific theory, "P" is true if and
>only if p.
>
>==============
>
>Why not just bypass Tarski? That's what G Spencer Brown, Varela and
>more recently Michael Lynch, do and they still let us keep the virtues
>of recursiveness that Tarski alluded to. Otherwise aren't we just
>stuck endlessly prattling about deflationism?
>
>Ian
>
I'm not stuck on Tarski. You know more about this than I do. I was just
invoking Davidson's use of Tarskian truth theory in natural languages. But
my point was that I don't reduce "true" to "works." I am a pragmatist, but
not a Jamesian. If there are other and better theories of truth than
Davidson-Tarski, let's use them. I have Alston's recent book, A Realist
Conception of Truth, which I have onl;y skimmed. It looks promising.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com