David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 (2):195-197 (1975)
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||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sven Ove Hansson (1993). A Resolution of Wollheim's Paradox. Dialogue 32 (04):681-.
Similar books and articles
Jon 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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #258,148 of 1,088,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?