🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec21.003650.11227@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.000838.26936@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <BzEvzJ.1s1@cs.bham.ac.uk> ard@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.173641.17791@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>>So long as we can successfully communicate, then it doesn't matter
>>>if your experience of the sky is similar to mine.  
>>
>>It matters to anyone who doesn't adopt the rather crude pragmatism that
>>you have just endorsed. Some of us are interested in truth, not just
>>whether or not something "works"
>
>This entire discussion should be moved to sci.epistemology :)
>I'm curious just what kind of theory of truth you have...  I think
>my position is probably pretty close to what you call Michael's 
>"crude pragmatism", I've never been able to find a coherent alternative.
>
You've messed up the attributions here. It's Antoni who's expressed what
I called "crude pragmatism", and if you agree with it, then I suggest you
read up on the fall of pragmatic theories of truth. The _Encyclopedia of
Philosophy_ would probably be a reasonable place to begin, though it's a
bit dated (1967).

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1