On 3/30/2013 9:20 AM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > david petry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > >> On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:27:46 PM UTC-7, fom wrote: >>> On 3/25/2013 11:14 AM, david petry wrote: >> >>>> It is falsifiability that gives mathematics meaning. >> >>> Meaning can be a complicated question. Typically, >>> in the modern sense of meaning, the meaning of a >>> statement is now taken to be its truth conditions. >> >> I guess that by "in the modern sense" you mean that some kind of >> consensus has been reached by the elite philosophers you think are >> worth listening to. I really doubt that a majority of intelligent >> people would agree with that consensus. > > Right. > > But if you ask the man on the street what provides meaning, he'll say > "falsifiability!" > > It's no good pretending that philosophers' answers are irrelevant, > because they are not accepted by the common man, when your own answers > are similarly obscure and unaccepted. >
Actually, the man on the street would probably express a correspondence theory of truth with regard to statements involving material objects.
If pressed on meaning involving abstract objects, a sort of personal pragmatism would be invoked on the basis of utilities and/or beliefs.
If pressed further, one would most likely hear something such as:
"It is what it is"
That seems to be the nature of reductive reasoning and epistemology. In the final analysis, the elite philosophers do not do much better.