The sentence ‘snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white.
The sentence ‘snow is white’ is true if and only if both “snow” and “white” have agreed upon definitions and there is a way to test for whiteness and this test can be performed on snow, and this test return “white” repeatably for most people performing the test.
From all these futile instrumentalism-vs-realism arguments I get a feeling that I am missing something important in your logic, but I cannot figure out what it is. Maybe it will become clear if we get to chat in person one day.
It seems like your view means that, for example, none of the sentences written in Linear A (a lost language) are either true or false. Yet, when they were written, they were (some of them at least) true or false. And were we to find a translation key like the Rosetta stone for Linear A, they would once again become true or false. Suppose one of the sentences we translate comes out to “Crete is rocky and dry”. When it was written, it was true. It is true now. But for three thousand intervening years, this sentence was meaningless?
But for three thousand intervening years, this sentence was meaningless?
It was not meaningless within the model that you describe (see one-place vs two-place functions): Linear A is a language which supports sentences equivalent to English “Crete is rocky and dry”. Whether this model is a good one will be determined when the translation key is found.
You seem to be pattern-matching “non-repeatable” with “ought to be repeatable but isn’t”, a common tell that reveals liars. But consider something more mundane. I have a six-sided die here. First, I’m going to name it “Rolie”, so that it won’t be interchangeable with other dice. Now I’m going to roll it once, and note the number that came up. Finally, I’m going to throw it in the trash, so that this is a non-repeatable, one-time occurrence.
Now here’s a sentence: Rolie rolled 2. Is this true, false, unknown, or incapable of being either true or false?
Some sentences are past-tense, some sentences are present-tense, some sentences are future-tense, and some sentences are timeless. All of them can be true or false.
My favourite example of that is “the sperm cell Dante Alighieri was conceived with originated in his father’s left testicle” (vaguely inspired by an idea in a thought experiment by Douglas Hofstadter).
The sentence ‘snow is white’ is true if and only if both “snow” and “white” have agreed upon definitions and there is a way to test for whiteness and this test can be performed on snow, and this test return “white” repeatably for most people performing the test.
You are confusing the concept of a belief being true with the conditions under which you can know it to be true.
That’s because I don’t subscribe to your other cherished belief, that territory is in the territory and not in the map.
Thanks for demonstrating that not everyone already believes the contents of the post, then.
From all these futile instrumentalism-vs-realism arguments I get a feeling that I am missing something important in your logic, but I cannot figure out what it is. Maybe it will become clear if we get to chat in person one day.
It seems like your view means that, for example, none of the sentences written in Linear A (a lost language) are either true or false. Yet, when they were written, they were (some of them at least) true or false. And were we to find a translation key like the Rosetta stone for Linear A, they would once again become true or false. Suppose one of the sentences we translate comes out to “Crete is rocky and dry”. When it was written, it was true. It is true now. But for three thousand intervening years, this sentence was meaningless?
That’s weird.
It was not meaningless within the model that you describe (see one-place vs two-place functions): Linear A is a language which supports sentences equivalent to English “Crete is rocky and dry”. Whether this model is a good one will be determined when the translation key is found.
A translation key is only possible if it is a good model (though I also think all languages are necessarily inter-translatable).
What about non-repeatable one-time occurrences? Would those be incapable of generating true sentences in your opinion?
These are generally known as “miracles”, so no.
You seem to be pattern-matching “non-repeatable” with “ought to be repeatable but isn’t”, a common tell that reveals liars. But consider something more mundane. I have a six-sided die here. First, I’m going to name it “Rolie”, so that it won’t be interchangeable with other dice. Now I’m going to roll it once, and note the number that came up. Finally, I’m going to throw it in the trash, so that this is a non-repeatable, one-time occurrence.
Now here’s a sentence: Rolie rolled 2. Is this true, false, unknown, or incapable of being either true or false?
Some sentences are past-tense, some sentences are present-tense, some sentences are future-tense, and some sentences are timeless. All of them can be true or false.
My favourite example of that is “the sperm cell Dante Alighieri was conceived with originated in his father’s left testicle” (vaguely inspired by an idea in a thought experiment by Douglas Hofstadter).
I thought it was his father’s right testicle?
You’re putting the cart before the horse. Before the idea of testing hypotheses or even before human language developed, snow was still white.