Overview
The Problem Situation
The Tentative Solution
Critical Discussion
Correspondence
Content Logic
Class Logic
Logic of Arithmetic
Logic of Physics
Conclusion
Footnotes
Bibliography
The correspondence theory of truth explains truth as corresponding to facts. The philosophy of content logic focuses on correspondence in the sense of similarity and acknowledges that neither contents nor sentences correspond to facts in this sense directly, as they both are incomparable to facts. The following analysis assumes that correspondence and truth do not depend on subjective matters. Simply put, human beings do not make contents true; they make decisions on which assumptions to base their actions, but these decisions do not make the assumptions true. If this were the case, mistakes would be impossible. Truth is beyond human reach.
Where does the incomparability between contents, sentences and facts lie? And how can contents and sentences be made comparable? The incomparability lies in the fact that human beings—and this is valid for machines too—do not have direct access to contents and facts. A person who wants to assess the truth of a piece of content reads a sentence and pictures its content. This inner image is neither identical to the sentence nor the content nor the described fact. The person turns to the described fact, and his or her sense organs form sensory impressions of the fact. The inner image of the content and the sensory impressions of the fact are comparable. The correspondence between contents and facts is mediated by inner images and sensory impressions. Images and impressions act as proxies.
This theory of correspondence only works with contents and not with sentences. The inner image of a sentence is an image of letters and resembles the sensory impression of the sentence, as created by the sense organs. The inner image of a piece of content does not resemble the sensory impression of its sentence and is comparable to impressions formed by the sense organs attuned to the fact the content is supposed to describe.
In this sense, correspondence seems to be subjective. The next example shows that it is not subjective per se, but only if individuals refuse to submit their choices to objective tests.
Today’s computers can visualize contents. A computer receives sentences in a computer-readable format as input and generates data output that represents the contents of the input. A photo camera produces data output that represents the part of reality the content is supposed to describe. Software compares the two datasets and calculates a degree of correspondence. Human intervention is not dispensable because an individual must program the computer.
This procedure explains correspondence between contents and facts as a relation between datasets. Human beings set objective standards for correspondence, but they do not fabricate it.
This section argued that the philosophy of content logic improves the problem situation of the correspondence theory of truth by explaining the correspondence between contents and facts in the sense of similarity, as mediated by correspondence between datasets or between inner images and sensory impressions representing contents and facts. Ultimately, statistical means define correspondence.
Overview
The Problem Situation
The Tentative Solution
Critical Discussion
Correspondence
Content Logic
Class Logic
Logic of Arithmetic
Logic of Physics
Conclusion
Footnotes
Bibliography
[Download a pdf version: Contents, Sentences, and Possibilities]