> The so-called "correspondence theory of truth" is considered a fallacy of the layman in academic philosophy. So in your understanding of academic philosophy,

> The so-called "correspondence theory of truth" is considered a fallacy of the layman in academic philosophy. So in your understanding of academic philosophy, how do you account for the critical difference between the two statements below? “Earth is flat.” “Earth is a spheroid.” I don’t see what is fallacious about accepting the second statement as corresponding to facts and dismissing the former for not corresponding. If it’s merely a matter of semantics regarding the words “correspondence” and “truth”, an alternative verbalisation of the critical distinction between those two statements must nonetheless be available; and it should be prioritised in discourse.