Construct · 3 fields · 3 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, three constructs Nearest construct by meaningcorrespondencecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to truth is correspondence.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
In philosophy, truth is the property a belief or statement has when it matches the way things actually are: the correspondence theory holds that a statement is true when it fits the facts, while rival accounts ask instead whether it coheres with other beliefs or works well in practice. J. L. Austin's 1950 paper Truth defended a version of correspondence, arguing that a statement is true when the conventions of language pair the words with the situation they describe. Here the question is what truth is, a relation between what we say and the world, not a value handed to a sentence inside a formal model, and not a courtroom defense to a charge of defamation.[1]
In logic and formal semantics, a truth value is the semantic value assigned to a sentence: in classical two-valued systems that value is either true or false, and truth is treated as satisfaction, a sentence counting as true when a given model makes it so. Alfred Tarski's 1944 The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics gave a rigorous definition of truth for a formal language, fixing exactly when a sentence is true relative to an interpretation. Here truth is a formal value computed inside a defined system, not the philosopher's relation between a belief and the world, and not a legal defense that a published statement was accurate.[2]
In the law of defamation, truth is the classic complete defense: a statement that harms someone's reputation is not actionable if the defendant can show it was substantially true, a plea long known as justification. Van Vechten Veeder's 1903 study The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation traced how this defense grew and how the burden of proving truth was placed on the party who published the words. Here truth names a fact to be proved to a court in order to escape liability, weighed against reputation, and it is neither the philosopher's correspondence between belief and reality nor a formal value assigned to a sentence in a model.[3]
Next
See how truth sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct