| Revision as of 08:48, 10 July 2005 edit67.182.157.6 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:54, 10 July 2005 edit undoBanno (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,532 edits re-insert deleted materialNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Why is True auto redirecting to Truth? | |||
| Might want a disambigous page w/ also links to True in terms of other things, (I came looking for Computer Science related info) --] 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Redirect == | |||
| The definition given here is far too feeble. ... ] 21:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Too feeble??? == | |||
| Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the ] to float above the sea of theist ] in ]. | |||
| :The definition offered is blatantly POV - see ]] 07:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The corespondence theory is one amongst many | |||
| This is not about any THEORY ('might be' proposition), sir. | |||
| Any statement about the actual state of affairs in any particular case is true if and only if it is in accord with the actual state of affairs in that particular case. This is not just a point of view, or a theory, it is the definition of the term, 'true'. What are you, ]? | |||
| :Read the article ]. Take a look at the archive. You are proposing one definition (corespondence) among many. That is POV. And I do not yet have a knighthood. ] 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Read the article ]. ... ] 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | :Read the article ]. ... ] 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:54, 10 July 2005
Why is True auto redirecting to Truth? Might want a disambigous page w/ also links to True in terms of other things, (I came looking for Computer Science related info) --ORBIT 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Redirect
The definition given here is far too feeble. ... Banno 21:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Too feeble???
Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the buoyancy to float above the sea of theist obscurantism in Truth.
- The definition offered is blatantly POV - see truthBanno 07:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The corespondence theory is one amongst many
This is not about any THEORY ('might be' proposition), sir. Any statement about the actual state of affairs in any particular case is true if and only if it is in accord with the actual state of affairs in that particular case. This is not just a point of view, or a theory, it is the definition of the term, 'true'. What are you, Obscurantist?
- Read the article truth. Take a look at the archive. You are proposing one definition (corespondence) among many. That is POV. And I do not yet have a knighthood. Banno 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Been there, done that, got the T shirt, and I have questions about it. 8^)
How about clearing up something for me today, Banno, concerning that article? How can you presume to write about TRUTH (meaning a statement that is true) without first stipulating to the meaning of the more basic term, TRUE (in general usage generally taken to mean "In accord with the actual state of affairs")? Would it be possible for one to explain the term, 'fourth' to a visitor from another planet without first explaining the more basic term, 'four'?