= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
torekp comments on Why I Reject the Correspondence Theory of Truth - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (27)
"This soup tastes like chicken." "No, you're wrong - it tastes like turkey." "Gosh, you're right, it does taste like turkey."
If sense data are primitive, either we can never talk about them, or the above conversation is impossible. But it's thoroughly possible. The minute you describe anything - even sense experience - the possibility of error creeps in. I.e., you are making a model.
I think the correspondence theory might work none the less, though. You're onto something in your last paragraph. Perfect epistemic access is not required for a semantic (correspondence) relation to make sense.
Are you are the two parties disagreeing about what their sense data actually are, or about what the sense data match in some way? The same sense data can be matched against different things (think of the sketch which seems to be a young woman when you look at it one way, and an old one at second glance).
I think I understand your question, based on your young woman/old woman example. The two parties are disagreeing, then agreeing, about what the sense data actually are.