Correspondence
Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 (2):195-197 (1975)
| Abstract | Giving ‘facts’ and ‘truth’ their ordinary senses, can one resist equating truth with correspondence to fact? For, with every variation in facts, there would necessarily be a corresponding variation in what propositions were true. But there would likewise be a corresponding variation in which they were false. Moreover, for any true proposition, the Correspondence Theory is committed also to denying that the existence of the fact believed normally follows just from the existence of the belief | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJon Barwise & Lawrence S. Moss (1998). Modal Correspondence for Models. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27 (3):275-294.
Schick (1985). In Defense of the Correspondence Theory. Philosophy Research Archives 11:319-334.
David Pearce & Veikko Rantala (1983). Correspondence as an Intertheory Relation. Studia Logica 42 (2-3):363 - 371.
Patricia Marino (2006). What Should a Correspondence Theory Be and Do? Philosophical Studies 127 (3):415 - 457.
D. Goldstick (2000). Correspondence. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000 (2):195 - 197.
D. Patterson (2003). What is a Correspondence Theory of Truth? Synthese 137 (3):421 - 444.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,265 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
