1

# truth

esmagalhaes

1
Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:05 pm
H. P. Grice reports on this clever argument about error from McTaggart. The argument claims that the appearance of error entails the existence of error. Suppose there appears to be error. Then there are two options. If the appearance is accurate, then there is error (somewhere). If the appearance is inaccurate, then again there is error (in the appearance, if nowhere else).
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:42 pm
I suppose Dyslexia's proposition that Wet birds never fly at night may be taken to be a FACT (an empirical generalization) because we never, or virtually never, see wet birds flying at night. But I think many people think that TRUTH would be a valid answer to question of WHY wet birds never fly at night. What is the "covering law" or principle underlying that fact?
0 Replies

Eorl

1
Fri 19 Oct, 2007 05:54 am
Truth is something we agree upon so that we can move on to the next bit of the puzzle ... to quote that great mathematician Laurie Anderson..."Let x=x".
0 Replies

akaMechsmith

1
Fri 19 Oct, 2007 10:09 am
JLNobody wrote:

Instead of Truth (with upper case T) I prefer Reality. The two are often used interchangably, but not by me.

Personally I prefer to use "observed" instead of Truth or Reality.

"The apple fell from the tree" as a case in point. Except as an observer we have no way of knowing whether the apple fell down or the universe jumped up.

However we both can observe the apple fell down which is true in our particular reality. Now the worm in the apple may find something different
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Fri 19 Oct, 2007 10:30 am
AMSmith, I would used "observation" for fact rather than Truth. I observe the fact of an apple falling, I do not "observe" a law of physics that "explains" that observation, I THINK it.

I like your pragmatic perspectivism in noting the point of view of the worm. I cannot deny the existence of a hole in front of me without risking an injurious fall into it, but the ant can.
0 Replies

Letty

1
Fri 19 Oct, 2007 06:05 pm
"'Beauty is truth; truth, beauty'--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Just saw a bit about Donald Trump slamming Angelina Jolie and George Clooney about "beautiful people", and the writer of the article used Keat's quote. That quote has been examined and analyzed and disputed by many astute folks and still no agreement among them.

Incidentally, JL. The dys stole that "wet bird" thing from me. The truth was not in him.

I do believe that an abstract painting is much easier to define than abstract nouns.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Fri 19 Oct, 2007 06:15 pm
I KNEW the wet bird example was from you. Dys is completely incapable of that abstract noun*.

* One might argue that it is a concrete noun. But ALL words are abstractions.
0 Replies

OmSigDAVID

1
Sat 20 Oct, 2007 07:15 am
JLNobody wrote:
I suppose Dyslexia's proposition that Wet birds never fly at night may be taken to be a FACT (an empirical generalization) because we never, or virtually never, see wet birds flying at night. But I think many people think that TRUTH would be a valid answer to question of WHY wet birds never fly at night. What is the "covering law" or principle underlying that fact?

1 ) " virtually never " ??

2 ) I saw one flying in the rain, at nite.

( Yes; I am sure he was not a bat. )
0 Replies

OmSigDAVID

1
Sat 20 Oct, 2007 07:30 am
Letty wrote:
"'Beauty is truth; truth, beauty'--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Just saw a bit about Donald Trump slamming Angelina Jolie and George Clooney about "beautiful people", and the writer of the article used Keat's quote. That quote has been examined and analyzed and disputed by many astute folks and still no agreement among them.

Incidentally, JL. The dys stole that "wet bird" thing from me. The truth was not in him.

I do believe that an abstract painting is much easier to define than abstract nouns.

The "wet bird" thing was from the late comedian Jackie Vernon
( my favorite comedian ) going back at least to the Ed Sullivan Show,
in the 50s or 60s
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 11:07 pm
Jackie Vernon? I remember him; never cared for him.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 11:12 pm
I say "virtually never" because law-like (nomothetic) statements are probabilistic statements. Unless they are mere tautologies, like 4 plus 4 always equals 8 (remember, "4 plus 4" is just another way of saying "8").
0 Replies

shepaints

1
Sun 28 Oct, 2007 04:06 pm
I like this definition....

"What is truth?" asked McLuhan in 1974, and he answered with a quote he attributed to Agatha Christie's iconoclastic investigator Hercule Poirot: "Eet ees whatever upsets zee applecart."

( in an article by Gary Wolf, Wired).
0 Replies

Bossox

1
Sun 28 Oct, 2007 04:09 pm
Things I Believe are true

5+5=10

If I throw a ball, eventually it will fall

I exist
0 Replies

OmSigDAVID

1
Mon 29 Oct, 2007 12:34 am
Bossox wrote:

Quote:
Things I Believe are true

Have u ever discovered anything that u believed to be in error ?

Quote:
If I throw a ball, eventually it will fall

If u r in outer space when u throw it,
beyond a gravity field, will it still fall ?

Truth is an accurate description
of the extant state of affairs.
David
0 Replies

fungotheclown

1
Wed 31 Oct, 2007 12:41 pm
There is no such thing as outside a gravity field. Gravity's effect may be practically imperceptible, but it's always there.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Wed 31 Oct, 2007 04:35 pm
Bossox, you say that among the certainties of your life there is "I exist". Remember the dualist, Descartes, also saw that as one of his certainties: Because HE thought, he, the thinker, necessarily (certainly) existed.
Today we know that the existence of the subject (the "I" or "thinker") is, to say the least, problematical. This is not to question the existence of thinking itself, even though "existence" is the topic of much philosophical questioning.
I recommend that--if you are so inclined--that you LOOK FOR your "I" as a concrete empirical entity*, as opposed to being a mere presumption inspired by our grammatical system, i.e. grammatically, "seeing" (predicate) requires a "seer" (subject), also, thinking requires a thinker, e.g., all deeds grammatically imply doers, just as all subjects require objects and vice versa.

*David Hume argued that the "self" has no solid empirical basis. All we need to do, he said, is to look within: we will find "nothing but...a collection of different perceptions in a state of continual change" (A Treatise of Human Nature).
0 Replies

bellsybop

1
Wed 31 Oct, 2007 08:09 pm
My truth would be that child birth hurts.
0 Replies

Steve 41oo

1
Thu 1 Nov, 2007 11:17 am
Re: truth
amhp wrote:
Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle says its impossible to know the absolute truth about anything. We are all working on differing values of probability. Nevertheless we have evolved to cope with it.
0 Replies

fungotheclown

1
Thu 1 Nov, 2007 11:25 am
Actually, that is a commonly held misconception. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can only gain certainty about one thing by giving it up about another, in very specific pairs. Position and velocity is the most common example. You can know exactly how fast a particle is moving, but in doing so, you give up the ability to have any idea of where it is. This is a very, very simple explanation, but you get the idea.

Are talking truth or Truth?
0 Replies

Steve 41oo

1
Thu 1 Nov, 2007 11:42 am
yeah ok I accept that qualification. Life is a messy mixture.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

1. Forums
2. » truth
3. » Page 2