This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Banno (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 13 July 2005 (→Disputed: sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:37, 13 July 2005 by Banno (talk | contribs) (→Disputed: sig)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Redirect
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)
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)
Hint: It is only disputed by those who are obscurantist.
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'?
- This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Please do not delete material from the talk pages. Banno 09:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies. Now will you please answer the question?
- I, and others, have - in the archive you claim to have read.
You mean your screed of theist obscurantism in your article, Truth? Nothing there answers the my question.
- Again, this is not a forum. Banno 23:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
So you can publish whatever screed of theist obscurantism you please, and it is never open to question? What are these talk pages for then?
- Certainly not for feeding Trolls. Enough. Banno
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. 67.182.157.6 01:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Better
Reproducing material from truth#Other uses of "true" here seems pointless to me, but if it is important for you.... Banno 22:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Disputed
What are your grounds for disputing 1? Maybe you should see Peer review? 67.182.157.6 23:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- .3, as I've pointed out, there are other definitions of "true"; the article truth lists at least 10. For a few more, see Talk:Truth/Archive 3#List of accepted definitions of truth - in the archive you claimed to have read. Your single use of the correspondence theory is, as I said, POV.
- As for: True, about a statement, is an evaluation of the truth of that statement. To say "it is true that: it is raining" is to evaluate the statement "it is raining" as being true. This is a variation on the consensus intro to truth, a compromise reached after extensive discussion - not just my work.
- As for policies, you might benefit from reading Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view; Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette; Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith; Misplaced Pages:Writers' rules of engagement; read those, and I'll try to stick to Misplaced Pages:Welcome anonymous editing. Banno 00:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)