Truth (Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy) Read online

  PRINCETON FOUNDATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY

  Scott Soames, Series Editor

  Philosophical Logic by JOHN P. BURGESS

  Philosophy of Language by SCOTT SOAMES

  Philosophy of Law by ANDREI MARMOR

  TRUTH

  Alexis G. Burgess & John P. Burgess

  PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

  PRINCETON AND OXFORD

  Copyright © 2011 by Princeton University Press

  Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW press.princeton.edu

  All Rights Reserved

  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

  Burgess, Alexis, 1980-

  Truth / Alexis G. Burgess and John P. Burgess.

  p. cm. — (Princeton foundations of contemporary philosophy)

  Includes bibliographical references and index.

  ISBN 978-0-691-14401-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Truth. I. Burgess, John P., 1948- II. Title.

  BD171.B85 2010

  121—dc22

  2010041439

  British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

  This book has been composed in Archer and Minion Pro

  Printed on acid-free paper. ∞

  Printed in the United States of America

  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

  To Anna and Aigli

  Contents

  Preface

  Acknowledgments

  CHAPTER ONE

  Introduction

  1.1 Traditional Theories

  1.2 Contemporary Theories

  1.3 Paradoxes

  1.4 Plan

  1.5 Sentences

  1.6 Propositions

  CHAPTER TWO

  Tarski

  2.1 “Semantic” Truth

  2.2 Object Language vs Metalanguage

  2.3 Recursive Definition

  2.4* Direct Definition

  2.5* Self-Reference

  2.6* Model Theory

  CHAPTER THREE

  Deflationism

  3.1 Redundancy

  3.2 Other Radical Theories

  3.3 Disquotation

  3.4 Other Moderate Theories

  3.5 Sloganeering

  3.6 Reference

  CHAPTER FOUR

  Indeterminacy

  4.1 Presupposition

  4.2 Vagueness

  4.3 Denial, Disqualification, Deviance

  4.4 Doublespeak, Dependency, Defeatism

  4.5 Relativity

  4.6 Local vs Global

  CHAPTER FIVE

  Realism

  5.1 Realism vs Deflationism

  5.2 Correspondence Theories

  5.3 Truthmaker Theories

  5.4 Physicalism

  5.5 Utility

  5.6 Normativity

  CHAPTER SIX

  Antirealism

  6.1 Meaning and Truth

  6.2 Davidsonianism

  6.3 Dummettianism vs Davidsonianism

  6.4 Dummettianism vs Deflationism

  6.5 Holism

  6.6 Pluralism

  CHAPTER SEVEN

  Kripke

  7.1 Kripke vs Tarski

  7.2 The Minimum Fixed Point

  7.3 Ungroundedness

  7.4* The Transfinite Construction

  7.5* Revision

  7.6* Axiomatics

  CHAPTER EIGHT

  Insolubility?

  8.1 Paradoxical Reasoning

  8.2 “Revenge”

  8.3 Logical “Solutions”

  8.4 “Paraconsistency”

  8.5 Contextualist “Solutions”

  8.6 Inconsistency Theories

  Further Reading

  Bibliography

  Index

  Preface

  THIS VOLUME IS, in accordance with the aims of the series in which it appears, a somewhat opinionated introductory survey of its subject, at a level suitable for advanced undergraduate or beginning graduate students of philosophy, or the general reader with some philosophical background. The subject is truth, and more specifically, what it is for something to be true, with special emphasis on the question whether there is anything interesting all truths have in common, besides their all being true.

  We set aside the postmodernist answer, “All truths are enforced by the hegemonic structures of society,” on the grounds that it confuses something's passing for true in a given society with its actually being true, overlooking the question, “What is something that passes for true in a given society passing for?” Questions about what passes for true but isn't, and how it is able to do so, are needless to say of great importance, but writers addressing them have not been lacking.

  We also leave to others the question of “the value of truth,” at least insofar as it is a question of intrinsic value, not just practical utility. The important issues that have been extensively discussed under this heading seem to us really about the intrinsic value, not so much of truth itself, as of something else related to it: of discovering the truth, or of speaking the truth. That one should value knowledge and honesty, rather than contenting oneself with what Harry Frankfurt calls bullshit, we take for granted without comment, and we take for granted that the reader takes it for granted, too.

  The issues about truth that remain, the ones we do address, have in recent years been made the subject of dozens of monographs and anthologies, as well as scores of journal articles not yet anthologized. Any survey of this large volume of material will inevitably give more attention to some parts of it than others, with more than a few subtopics getting merely a passing mention (plus references to further literature for the interested reader). Though other authors would doubtless make different judgments about what to emphasize and what not, we do not consider our judgment to be at all eccentric. We do give especially detailed attention to the pros and cons of so-called deflationism, and its claim that there is nothing interesting all truths have in common; but then it is hard to think of an issue that has been more intensively debated in the recent specialist literature on truth.

  Though not eccentric, our emphases are not entirely conventional, either. Though for expository purposes we first treat the question of the nature of truth in isolation from consideration of such paradoxical utterances as “What I am now saying is false,” our real opinion is that the two topics are inseparable. One can go a long way toward the goal of an adequate theory of truth while ignoring the bearing of the paradoxes, but not all the way, and so we have devoted our last two chapters to the paradoxes and attempted solutions. The least conventional aspect of our choice of topics is perhaps our giving attention to a position often treated as unmentionable, the defeatist view that the paradoxes admit no solution.

  The paradoxes nonetheless remain for us a subordinate issue. The literature on them fairly quickly gets involved in technicalities, but our discussion goes only as far as is possible without requiring any deep knowledge of technical notions. Moreover, the more technical parts of the material we do include have been placed in sections starred as optional reading, whose omission should not seriously impede understanding of the remainder of the book.

  About the division of labor in producing this volume the following may be said. We have drawn on previous work by both of us, especially AGB's doctoral dissertation on fictionalism about truth and public lectures of JPB on Tarski and Kripke. We began with a literature search, making a list of topics needing coverage, with AGB and JPB taking responsibility for the more philosophic
al and the more technical material, respectively. AGB then undertook extensive drafting, and JPB intensive rewriting to condense to fit the publisher's word limits. As a result of this way of working, JPB is mainly to be blamed for any faults in the condensed style, though AGB did undertake a final editing. In matters of substance rather than style, we stand together.

  Acknowledgments

  THANKS TO SCOTT SOAMES, for organizing the present series and inviting us to contribute to it. Thanks as well to the staff at Princeton University Press, especially Ian Malcolm, Heath Renfroe, and Leslie Grundfest; to our copyeditor, Jodi Beder; and to the two readers who provided comments on the manuscript.

  CHAPTER ONE

  Introduction

  INQUIRY, IT IS SAID, aims at the truth. Yet it's doubtful there is any such thing as the truth. So it might be better to say that inquiry aims at truths, and better still to say that different inquiries from archeology to zoology aim at different truths from archeological to zoological. Such inquiries have had many successes, but in many cases inquiries are still underway, and success has not yet been achieved. Thus some truths are known, others unknown. But what, if anything, do the different truths, known and unknown, about different topics have in common, to make them all truths? If we knew the answer to this question we'd at least have a better understanding of the nature of inquiry, and perhaps even a better chance of finding what we're looking for when we inquire. But with so many kinds of truths, the project of coming up with a unified conception of what truths are might seem hopeless. Perhaps that is why other inquiries leave it to philosophy.

  This little book is about recent philosophical inquiries into what it is for a thing to be true. There are other philosophical questions about truth—Is truth of value in itself or only as a means to other ends? How much sense can be made of the idea of one untruth's being closer to truth than another?—but there are so many such questions that it would take a book longer than this even just to introduce them all. The question on which we focus—”What is it for a thing to be true?”—has a certain priority simply because some sort of answer to it has to be presupposed by any serious attempt to answer almost any of the others.

  1.1 TRADITIONAL THEORIES

  If the best-known saying about truth is Pilate's question, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), probably the best-known saying about truth by a philosopher is Aristotle's assertion (Metaphysics, 1011b25):

  (1) To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

  This saying, like others of Aristotle's, has been interpreted in more than one way; and it is not the only thing Aristotle said about truth, either. The definition modern philosophy inherited from medieval Aristotelianism ran along the following lines:

  (2) Truth is agreement of thought with its object.

  Most early modern philosophers from Descartes to Kant professed to accept something like (2) as a definition of truth.

  Some, however, even as they did so, complained, in a terminology itself inherited from medieval Aristotelianism, that (2) was only a “nominal” definition, revealing the meaning of the word “truth,” and not a “real” definition, revealing the essence of the thing, Truth. The supposed contrast between real and nominal definition was in deep disrepute through much of the last century, but in recent decades its reputation has recovered somewhat, and we will see in later chapters that there is a fundamental division today among writers on truth over the question whether, once it has been explained what it means to call something true, there remain any further questions about what it is to be true.

  Be that as it may, (2) was as diversely interpreted as it was widely endorsed. By a century or so ago at least three interpretations had emerged, differing over the location of the objects of thought—in an external world, in the mind along with thought itself, or in the interaction between the two—and therewith over the nature of agreement. In surveys of philosophical thought about truth one typically encounters early on a list of “theories” of truth represented by slogans loosely based on things that were said in a three-cornered debate over truth about a century ago, in which the realist insurgent Bertrand Russell attacked the dominant British idealism and American pragmatism of the day, as represented by the now-forgotten H. H. Joachim and the ever-famous William James.

  The slogans are biconditional in form, involving “if and only if” (henceforth abbreviated “iff”). They read as follows:

  (3) Realist or correspondence theory:

  A belief is true iff it corresponds to reality.

  (4) Idealist or coherence theory:

  A belief is true iff it coheres with other ideas.

  (5) Pragmatist or utility theory:

  A belief is true iff it is useful in practice.

  By bringing in the notions of reality and idea and practice, whose homes are metaphysics and epistemology and ethics, such views tend to suggest truth is a metaphysical or epistemological or ethical notion.

  Both (4) and (5) invite immediate objections: May not a paranoid's delusions of persecution be frighteningly coherent? May not a patient's faith that a mere placebo is a wonder drug be therapeutically useful? Russell was quick to claim in opposition to Joachim that multiple systems of beliefs may be internally consistent, though incompatible with each other. Nietzsche had already suggested well before James that false beliefs may be not merely useful but indispensable for life. These objections are so obvious that the reader will likely guess that Joachim and James must have held more interesting views than a simplistic reading of the coherence and utility slogans would suggest.

  Indeed, idealists understood that multiple belief systems, including crazy ones, might be classifiable as coherent if one meant by coherence just bare logical consistency; but they meant something more. Likewise, pragmatists recognized that there might be counterexamples to the principle of the utility of truth if one understood it as a purported exceptionless universal law; but they understood it as something less. Both groups also made cogent criticisms of crude “copy” versions of the correspondence theory. And the coherence and utility views put two questions on the agenda for any inquiry into the nature of truth: to explain why consistency is at least a necessary condition for truth, and why, as a general rule subject to particular exceptions, true beliefs tend to be more useful than false ones.

  Still, Joachim leaves quite obscure what beyond mere consistency is required for a system of beliefs to constitute a “significant whole,” and thus be coherent in his sense; and James does not satisfactorily explain how utility, or any feature that only claimed to hold “in the long run and for the most part,” could be definitive of truth.

  1.2 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES

  Any historical treatment of our subject would have a great deal more to say about the figures already mentioned and several others. Gottlob Frege, the great precursor of the analytic tradition in philosophy, held that truth could not be defined as correspondence or in any other way. G. E. Moore, cofounder with Russell of that tradition, held like Russell that truth is correspondence, and unlike Russell that correspondence is unanalyzable. C. S. Peirce, the philosopher and logician from whom James took the word “pragmatism,” defined truth roughly as what would come to be believed if inquiry were pursued to its ideal limit; John Dewey, a younger pragmatist whom James frequently cited, eventually concluded that one should simply avoid talk of truth in favor of talk of “warranted assertability.”

  This book, however, in accordance with the aims of the series in which it appears, must be concerned mainly with the status of the question among philosophers in the analytic tradition in the early twenty-first century, and so, after taking note of the debates of the first years of the twentieth, must leave those earlier debates behind. Henceforth the coherence and utility theories will be mentioned only as occasional foils for views having a significant number of present-day defenders.

  But note the plural: “views having a s
ignificant number of present-day defenders.” The analytic tradition has become the mainstream in Anglophone philosophy, wholly supplanting idealism and largely absorbing pragmatism, but in achieving this status it has ceased to represent, if it ever did, a uniform doctrine. Its founders' realist or correspondence view of truth is by no means universally accepted, and the reader should not infer from our indication that (4) and (5) are no longer widely defended that there is now a consensus in favor of (3). The problem with (3) is not that what it tells us seems obviously wrong, as with (4) or (5), but rather that it tells us so very little, pending specification of what its key terms (“reality” and “correspondence”) are supposed to mean, and that every attempt to say something more specific has proved highly contentious.

  The rival theories that attract philosophers today are not, however, those that attracted philosophers a century ago. Today the kind of idealism that predominated a century ago is dead, its heir being an idealism that dares not speak its name, and calls itself “antirealism.” Antirealism holds a distinctive view of the nature of truth, but it resembles the traditional idealist Joachim's view less than it resembles Peirce's. Pragmatism survives, but some of its most noted recent adherents have been, like many nonpragmatists, attracted to a view of the nature of truth, called deflationism, that attributes no interesting common property to all truths. In this respect deflationism is unlike the view of James; it derives, rather, from F. P. Ramsey, the most talented British philosopher of the generation after Russell and Moore.