Two quibbles that could turn out to be more than quibbles.
The concept of truth you intend to defend isn’t a correspondence theory—rather it’s a deflationary theory, one in which truth has a purely metalinguistic role. It doesn’t provide any account of the nature of any correspondence relationship that might exist between beliefs and reality. A correspondence theory, properly termed, uses a strong notion of reference to provide a philosophical account of how language ties to reality.
You write:
Some pundits have panicked over the point that any judgment of truth—any comparison of belief to reality—takes place inside some particular person’s mind; and indeed seems to just compare someone else’s belief to your belief.
I’m inclined to think this is a straw man. (And if they’re mere “pundits” and not philosophers why the concern with their silly opinion?) I think you should cite to the most respectable of these pundits or reconsider whether any pundits worth speaking of said this. The notion that reality—not just belief—determines experiments, might be useful to mention, but it doesn’t answer any known argument, whether by philosopher or pundit.
Two quibbles that could turn out to be more than quibbles.
The concept of truth you intend to defend isn’t a correspondence theory—rather it’s a deflationary theory, one in which truth has a purely metalinguistic role. It doesn’t provide any account of the nature of any correspondence relationship that might exist between beliefs and reality. A correspondence theory, properly termed, uses a strong notion of reference to provide a philosophical account of how language ties to reality.
You write:
I’m inclined to think this is a straw man. (And if they’re mere “pundits” and not philosophers why the concern with their silly opinion?) I think you should cite to the most respectable of these pundits or reconsider whether any pundits worth speaking of said this. The notion that reality—not just belief—determines experiments, might be useful to mention, but it doesn’t answer any known argument, whether by philosopher or pundit.