On Bunge’s axiomatizations of “partial truth”
Abstract
One of the most notable theses Bunge defended regarding the concept of truth in empirical sciences was that it comes in degrees, in contrast to the usual assumption that there are only two truth-values, an assumption which according to him is fully adequate only for the formal disciplines of logic and pure mathematics. This paper discusses Bunge’s successive attempts at formulating an axiomatic theory of partial truth. I will briefly point out the formal defects of his earlier theories and I will prove that the latest formulations of his theory (made by himself and G. E. Romero) are still not adequate – the most recent one being, in fact, inconsistent.
References
Ackermann, R. (1964). “Review of The Myth of Simplicity: Problems of Scientific Philosophy by Mario Bunge”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 24:3, 447-448.
Bunge, M. (1963). The Myth of Simplicity: Problems of Scientific Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bunge, M. (1968). “Theory of Partial Truth: Not Proved Inconsistent”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 29:2
Bunge, M. (1974a). Treatise on Basic Philosophy I. Sense and Reference. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1974b). Treatise on Basic Philosophy II. Interpretation and Truth. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy VI: Understanding the World. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Bunge, M. (2010). Matter and Mind. Heidelberg: Springer.
Bunge, M. (2012). “The Correspondence Theory of Truth”, Semiotica, 188, 65-76.
Marquis, J. P. (2019). “Vérité partielle et réalisme scientifique. Une aproche bungéene”, Mεtascience, 1, 293-314.
Miller, D. (1977). “Bunge’s Theory of Partial Truth in No Such Thing”, Philosophical Studies, 31, 147-150.
Priest, G. (2008). An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quintanilla, M. Á. (1985). “El concepto de verdad parcial”, Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 1:1, 129-141.
Romero, G. E. (2017). “Truth and Relevancy”, Metatheoria, 7:2, 25-30.
Romero, G. E. (2018). Scientific Philosophy. Springer Nature Switzerland.
Copyright (c) 2023 Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.