What is that supposed to mean?

Not so. The statement can be considered true and yet still be a false statement.

It means congratulations. I totally agree with you. You are a genius.

Ummm... thanks?

i've answered that i don't know how many times. to experience it makes it true to the one who experienced it.

it's only true to the claimant who observed the cup on the table. everybody else would need rely on faith in what the claimant says is true.

it's not a truth to me unless i check myself. experience it myself.

ok. You are saying that a statement is only a true statement when qualified with the conditional IFF.

The cup is on the table <-> the cup is on the table.
Sorry - IFF - instead of <->.

From the discussion you had with AB on the first page you state that verification is insufficient as is the statement alone.

Then I have ask – in your opinion - what makes adding the conditional (IFF) any more sufficient to making your statement a true statement? Simply adding the conditional is not verification or validation that the statement corresponds to fact/reality any more than the statement itself.

AB, JR, and JB have all alluded to the idea that correspondence to fact/reality is an objective function, meaning that a verbal conditional is also not sufficient to making your statement true; and each of them has been discounted. I don’t understand why?

I am confused by the one word (true) in your question:
Might the word (valid), replacing the word true, be more apt in the situation? Making the question read – What would it take for the claim to be valid?

To me, using the word true requires correspondence to fact/reality which cannot be sufficed through a simple IFF statement. At the moment I can think of only two ways in which to correspond a statement to fact/reality. The first is to ‘believe’ that the source of the statement has, in reality, verified in some objective way the validity of the statement. The second way to correspond a statement to fact/reality would be to objectively verify/experience the conditional of the statement (the IFF).

We can side-step the conditional (make unnecessary) by utilizing either of the two ways above.

At this junction, Creative, I think you can respond to this post directly, or if you further explain the necessity of the IFF and how it is sufficient to making your statement true, I may better understand without your having address this post directly.

Thanks!

proof

Actually I'm not. There is a subtlety here regarding the method being employed that needs explained. It is not that the act of adding the conditional if, and only if is what makes any given statement true. Rather, it sets out exactly what does.

"The dog has fleas" is a true statement if, and only if the dog has fleas.

That is not to say that qualifying the statement with the conditional if, and only if is what makes the statement true. The statement is true if, and only if it corresponds to fact/reality. The subject here is the quoted statement about the way things are, and the predicate sets out what must obtain in fact/reality in order for the statement to be true.



Agreed. As before, simply adding the conditional if, and only if does not make the statement true. Rather, it clearly and succinctly sets out the only adequate condition, which iff it is met, makes it so. I want to make note that I'm not employing IFF here. There is a meaningful difference between IFF and iff. I'm employing the latter and not the former.



Agreed. I've never claimed that adding if, and only if is what makes a statement true.



No, and I'll be more than happy to clearly explain why. Validity is a measure of coherency/correct inference. An argument can be perfectly valid and still be false. That, and that alone, shows us that validity is insufficient for truth. It is also the reason that we strive for soundness rather than just validity. The difference being that a sound argument satisfies the criterion of a valid one, and it rests upon true premisses, and the conclusions do not conflict with known fact/reality.



The if, and only if sets out the only adequate truth condition of the statement. It clearly shows the only criterion that - when satisfied - makes a statement true. In my construal, the word "true" denotes and/or makes the claim of being true, i.e. corresponding to fact/reality(the way things are). So, I find that if we expect the word "true" to "require correspondence to fact/reality", we take a step backwards into infinite regress. We would be expecting the word "true" to require being true, to require being true, to require being true, etc.



I think the issue here is use. We do not correspond a statement to fact/reality, neither via belief nor by verification. We either believe that it corresponds or we don't. When we verify, we use the tools at our disposal in order to check and see if it does. Neither belief nor verification makes it correspond(true).



I disagree. When setting out what it takes for a statement to be true, neither belief nor verification is adequate. History proves this beyond any reasonable doubt.



Perhaps this will help.

Experiencing a statement makes it true to the one who experienced it?

I have no idea what it means to experience a statement. Regardless of that, the obvious error here is shown by the absurd logical consequences that follow from holding that that is the case.

--

Assuming we can experience a statement, if experiencing a statement makes it true, and we consider the fact that all statements are experienced, then it only follows that there is no such thing as a false statement.

We all know that that is not the case.

I think that there is some conflation here between belief, verification, and being true.

Depends on if the cup is 'aware' of itself.

and in any case.

Because you can not see into another universe does not mean that universe does not exists.

it simply means you have not observed it.

While you cannot assume it does exists...

You also cannot assume it does not.

well this claim is defiantly true

why you ask

as many tables and cups there are in the world somewhere some place there is a cup on a table

this is basic common sense

but if you say my blue and red cup is on your black glass top table then evidense of said statement would be needed

"My blue and red cup is on your black glass top table" is true, if and only if, my blue and red cup is on your black glass top table.

We need not check.

I watched a show the other day and a guy had a truck and a trailer and he was demanding to talk to the president. He thought he was wired to a bomb that would go off if he got up from his his tractor's chair.

There is a bomb in his truck.

(Or so he thought.)

What would it take for that statement to be true?

If there was a bomb in his truck, then that statement is true.

Yup. If, and only if, there is a bomb in his truck.

not what i said. i said that were i to experience what the claimant said was true would make the claim true to me as well. short of my experiencing what the claiment says he experienced makes the claim possibly untrue. so his truth is not my truth until and unless i experience what he experienced. of course i can say it's true that he made the claim. i experienced him make the claim but that is moot as regards the claim being true for me. question everything.

indeed. a belief cannot be verified to be true for all. requires faith.

Muddle.