Subjectivity of Language and Truth Values

 I was conversing with Gemini about the limits of LLMs since they are based on human language, and human language is just an approximation-perhaps statistically founded, on what is perceived. There is no direct relation between word and object such that the language has an element of realism about it. Various languages have different words of the experience of a red apple, and to some individuals it might even correlate with fear (perhaps Newton was traumatized being hit in the head with an apple).

There isn't much doubt that some academics since Dewey have said that truth is subjective. If language is subjective the statement has some truth about it. Language has a pragmatic basis though. People are free to reject truth where it is necessary and to be stupid if they prefer. Logic is a way of structuring analysis, and some don't like analytic philosophy either.

Here is a list of people that have supported the subjectivity of truth values provide by ChatGPT; "Since John Dewey, several academics, particularly in postmodernist and pragmatist traditions, have argued that truth is subjective or at least socially constructed. Some key figures include:

Richard Rorty (1931–2007) – A neopragmatist heavily influenced by Dewey, Rorty rejected the idea of objective truth, arguing instead that truth is what a given community finds useful to believe. He saw truth as a product of language and social practice rather than an objective correspondence with reality.

Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) – While not directly arguing that truth is subjective, Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) suggested that scientific paradigms determine what is considered true, implying that truth is relative to historical and social contexts.

Michel Foucault (1926–1984) – Foucault explored how knowledge and truth are shaped by power structures, arguing that truth is historically contingent and constructed through discourse rather than an objective reality.

Jean-François Lyotard (1924–1998) – In The Postmodern Condition (1979), Lyotard critiqued grand narratives and universal claims to truth, suggesting that truth is localized, contextual, and shaped by language games.

Bruno Latour (1947–2022) – A key figure in Science and Technology Studies (STS), Latour argued that scientific facts are constructed through networks of human and non-human actors, challenging the idea of objective truth.

Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) – Derrida’s deconstruction challenged the stability of meaning in language, implying that truth is always deferred and contingent upon interpretation."

Nelson Goodman (1906–1998) – In Ways of World making (1978), Goodman argued that truth depends on the conceptual frameworks we construct, suggesting multiple “right” descriptions of reality rather than one objective truth."

Plainly the notion that truth values are entirely and invariably subjective is useful to politicians who prefer lies and deceit. I believe they misunderstand the context of subjectivity for reasons of personal utility and positive reward for dismissing objective truth.

It may be that some people don’t understand the paradigm of subjective and objective distinctions for language and perception; they differ from one another.

Correspondence and Disquotation Theory

I like correspondence theories. They differ from similar theories that Quine approached as disquotation theory. It's more of an analytic linguistic paradigm concerning language.

For example if one has a list of a thousand member Boolean truth table and says is it true that E4 is a zero, one can look at E4 to see if it contains a zero and if it does answer yes it's true. One need not have a realist paradigm for truth values to affirm that truth exists. Truth exists in language relations, even for science. Words are descriptions about objects and relations and it's easy to go wrong when extending the reality of truth beyond language.

Keep in mind that philosophers can differ about what real objects are, as may physicists. Some regard field monism as actual albeit with clumsiness of entangled fermions here and there. There are additional theories for ontology. Quine felt that modal universes had language lexicons that were unique regarding identifiers. The identifiers weren't translatable from one lexicon to the next.

Disquotation theory parameters alleviate one from elucidating an entire list. It can be used, that is the word true can be used to affirm that a state of affairs exists.

For example if someone asks if it is true that it isn't raining outside one may reply with yes or no instead of saying that it isn't raining anywhere on Earth or other planets outside the room.

My examples weren't very good.

Disquotation theory allowd truth value parameters to be applied to a great number of questions that would otherwise require enumerating each member of a set.

Maybe someone could that it's true that class of women are beautiful instead of saying the name of each woman of the class and stipulating that she has beauty.

 Pragmatically something that works also is/exists. Disquotation theory works, like Boolean truth tables at relating what is. Some believe truth has a realist or neo-realist character; I would grant that only God has that. I like the idea that ideas are conditional about physical propositions.

It's probably fine to use correspondence theory so far as one knows the lexicon modality for corresponding expressions.

Disquotation theory abbreviates lists. The categorical problem of assuming that words have an actual relationship to objects; that the word apple is really part of the generally red or gold fruit per example, is often the point of contention for applying theories of truth to 'objects'.

Truth is a comment about the existence of things. One tests the existence of those propositions about things. Only God is truth itself and for-others who cannot be tested.