A= the fact that the cat is on the mat.
B= the proposition that the cat is on the mat.
If A, then B is true. So, we are in agreement. If no A, then B is false.
But, even though I believe B is true, I still think it's legitimate to say that facts are true (it's redundant even!). I do not think cat is true, and I do not think mat is true, but I do think the fact that the cat is on the mat is true.
All facts are true, and no fact is false.
Where did you get this idea from? That facts are true? It is not listed in Wiktionary.
fact - Wiktionary
Neither can I think of any example phrase. Please provide one if you can. I very much doubt you can.
Facts are not the kind of things that can meaningfully be said to be true or false (this is what some people mean when they say things like "facts cannot be true or false" cf. Zeth's usage of similar phrases). It is nonsense. One fact is that the earth exists. However would you say that "the earth exists is true" without speaking unclearly about the relevant truth carrier (proposition, sentence, belief, whatever)? That would be odd. Indeed, when we say things such as "It is true that the earth exists", we're talking about truth carriers. In such sentences the word "that" is often used and it has been noted by some philosophers that it is often associated with truth carriers. Some even use "that" to talk about truth carriers (especially propositions). For an example see Swartz (1979) that dedicates a section to explaining how to talk about propositions in a good way. I don't have the book here, so I cannot cite a page number for you or quote the relevant parts. I wish he would put it online as he did with his other books.
---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:10 PM ----------
I'll have to think about that some more. At first thought, I was going to go with a sentence can be both: "he went to the store" is sometimes true, and it's sometimes false. But then again, I need to keep in mind why I think sentences are true. I only think they're true when they express a true proposition (and false when they express a false proposition), and a sentence can't do both (be true and false) at the same time, for a proposition can't be both true and false at the same time. But, a sentence is neither a proposition nor an utterance, so you can use it (and it be true) while I use it (and it be false) at the same time, so maybe it can be both.
I don't know. I should think about this some more.
Actually I don't agree and neither does Ken that "he went to the store" is sometimes true and sometimes false. Ken would not even say that some propositions change truth values. Propositions, in his view and Swartz's, include information about the time of the state of affairs they are about. So if I utter the sentence above, it would express a different proposition each time because the time it was uttered changes.
The example is poor since it complicates things by being in the past tense. You should use a present tense example sentence such as "he is at the store" or better "he is at the store now". In the first improved example sentence the "now" in implied by context but not uttered.
For a discussion of the omnitemporalness of propositions, see Swartz (1979). I keep suggesting this book because you keep discussing things that are discussed in it! It is a wonder that you have not read it.
Do you also suffer from a reading block? I some a person that is pretty clever but he cannot read a book. He simply cannot find the motivation to do it. Strange but true. Still, he can find the motivation to waste large amounts of time on the internet on various forums. Strange indeed! If he used the same amount of time/energy on a book, he could have read it no problem.
You can put me down as a proponent of the correspondence theory of truth. I think coherence may be necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. It's possible to be incorrect about many things without ever making contradictory or contrary truth claims.
I don't know how you can be a proponent of the C. theory but still think that coherence may be necessary. What do you mean?
---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:11 PM ----------
Well, this is how kennethamy put it:
So, to say that a fact is true, does seem to be excessive (it's not necessary to say that it is true, since all facts are true).
Ken is wrong about this.
---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:15 PM ----------
Night Ripper;172279 wrote:
No, you're confusing things. A fact is not true or false because a fact is not a proposition. A fact is what makes some propositions true. The proposition "the cat is on the mat" is true if, in fact, the cat is on the mat. That's not to say something redundant either because what follows after "in fact" is not meant to refer to a proposition but rather an actual state of affairs, namely, the physical arrangement of the cat on the mat.
Yes, that is correct. Though the tricky part seems to be that people need to drop their understanding of the normal usage in english of "fact" and use only the philosophical meaning in philosophical context. This is similar to other cases words such as "proposition" (as in "the true proposition" and as in "his proposition to Emily was declined"), "statement" (as when "statement" is used synonymously with "proposition" and as in "he gave his statement to the police"), "true" (as in a "true proposition/sentence" and as in "true love"), "sound" (as in "a sound argument" and in as "sound teeth").
---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:17 PM ----------
Night Ripper;172440 wrote:
But that's not what a fact is. A fact is a state of affairs. It's what is reported by a true proposition. Facts are not linguistic at all. They are actual spatio-temporal slices of reality. The fact of JFK's shooting is not any string of words or utterances but rather the actual shooting of JFK. When I say "JFK was shot" it's the facts, the state of reality, that actually make such a proposition true.
Of course, the problem is that some people confuse a "true proposition" or a "truth" with a "fact" but they are quite different and facts are never true or false anymore than a "father" is true or false. Facts and fathers are both things. Something is either a fact or it's not. Something is either a father or it's not. But to say that it is a true fact or a true father is to miss the point completely. Facts and fathers aren't the kinds of things that are true or false.
Facts aren't true anymore than fathers are true. Facts are facts and fathers are fathers. A fact is something that is the case so to question if a fact is the case is the same as calling something a father and then asking if it's ever had any children. If it's a father, it's had children. If it's a fact, it is the case. There's no question involved.
Not how I would put it, but, yes, correct.