AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Is There an Area in Which a Correspondence Theory Doesn't Work?
correspondence theory works beautifully for the proposition that there is a glass of water here on this table. The fact is independently ostensible. But as soon as that simple model of the presentation of a circumstance, say, to perception and the thought or the belief, lapses then it starts limp. So how do you distinguish ento proof an a fact? Then? Wil proof is something we construct. Whereas the notion of fact hereis something tha's given to us, or so intuitably it seems, butt we ct. We use proofs in mathematics. We don't in facts.