First, due originally to Bertrand Russell (1907) in a discussion of James's theory, is that pragmatism mixes up the notion of truth with "epistemology". Pragmatism describes an "indicator" or a "sign" of truth. It really cannot be regarded as a theory of the "meaning" of the word "true". There's a difference between "stating an indicator" and "giving the meaning". For example, when the streetlights turn on at the end of a day, that's an , a sign, that evening is coming on. It would be an obvious mistake to say that the word "evening" just means "the time that the streetlights turn on". In the same way, while it might be an "indicator" of truth, that a proposition is part of that perfect science at the ideal limit of inquiry, that just isn't what "true" "means".