(Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons)
|| Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*.
Deflationary Theories of Truth
—“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”—
In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”.
Performative Theory of Truth
—“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”—
(Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle)
“I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”
With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”.
So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”.
It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony:
So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”;
…. in testimony that means:
“I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”
And what’s not obvious is this:
It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words.
And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why?
And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’.
Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words.
Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)