Truth and Belief

If you are mistaken about the capital of Ecuador it is a subjective error, and you could only find out othewise by subjective process


Pain is subjective, because if I believe I am in pain, then I am in pain. I cannot be mistaken about whether I am in pain. Knowledge is objective, since I can believe I know and not know. I can be mistaken about whether I know. Therefore, knowledge is objective.

Pain is subjective, because if I believe I am in pain, then I am in pain. I cannot be mistaken about whether I am in pain. Knowledge is objective, since I can believe I know and not know. I can be mistaken about whether I know. Therefore, knowledge is objective.

Subjective knowledge is about the objective world, knowledge requires however a knowning, thus knowledge is subjective.

It is even possible to be in error about ones own pain.

My father lost a leg in WWII. He said one of the worst things was when he felt intense pain in his foot; the foot that was no longer there.

Hi Boagie,

Maybe another way to state your point would be: the "seat" of knowledge must rest in a sentient subject (oneself--since this is the only person's thoughts we have direct access to), and not the object (inanimate, abstract or otherwise); and therefore the knowledge in the subject must be classified as subjective knowledge.

Now to get back to the subject of truth: what does it mean when one would say that this subjective knowledge (or proposition) is true (or the truth)? And can you express this meaning of Truth in a way that agrees with the two common constraints on truth and falsehood?

1. Every proposition is true or false. (Law of excluded middle)
2. No proposition is both true and false. (Law of non-contradiction)

These contraints require that every proposition has exactly one truth value that doesn't change its truth value in space or time.

It is certainly true that if A knows that p, then it is A who knows that p. But that is a tautology. And so, it is a truth, but a trivial truth that in that sense, knowledge is subjective. On the other hand, it is not a trivial truth, but a substantive falsity that if A believes that he knows that p, then A knows that p. (For whether or not A knows that p is quite objective). Therefore, in Boagie's sense of subjective, it is true, but trivial that knowledge is subjective, but in the non-trivial sense, it is false that knowledge is subjective. Therefore, Boagie can choose between stating something true, but trivial, or false but substantive. I don't really mind which, as long as it is clear which he prefers.

Excellent post, As to the second part, when one expresses something as true or false, it is about the said relationship between subject and object, the said object is of a certain condition relative to the subject. The colour red is only red relative to the senses of the subject, indeed to someone colour-blind it is another colour all together. Object is subject dependent and vise-versa. Just as there is no sound in the forest without an ear, so too there is no colour without eyes to precieve it---it is an interpretation not the thing itself.

kennethamy,

It does not matter what is to be known, it can only be known subjectively.

"It is not a trival truth, but a substantive falsity that if A believes that he knows P,then A knows P, for whether or not A knows that p is quite objective."

Whatever the conclusion it is subjectively known by someone. If you are stating something as a fact you must subjectively know this to be fact.

Give me one example of you knowning something which is not subjective.


Sure, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Whether it is or it is not is not up to me. And I might be mistaken that it is. So how can it be subjective. I mean by "subjective" that it is not mind-dependent, so that whether it is true, does not depend on whether I know it is true. You just mean (I think) by "subjective) that someone knows it. Of course, if it is known, then someone knows it. That is trivially true. So, in your sense of :subjective: it is trivially true that my knowledge that Quito is the capital is subjective. But in my sense of "subjective" it is simply false that my knowledge that the capital of Quito is subjective, for whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador is not dependent on my mind or on the mind of anyone.

Hi Boagie,

Thanks for the compliment.

To get better handle on this, would it be possible for you to give another example that is a bit more on an inference/propositional level (something that could be a falsehood) than recognition of simple sensory input (sight, smell, sound, taste, touch)? Recognition of simple sensory input can easily fall under the more common use of the term subjective knowledge (taste/opinion); which also makes it difficult to think of as "a truth" because it can't really be a falsehood. It is like saying "this is my opinion"-- you can't really say that it is not true that this is your opinion (given that it is indeed your opinion -- even if the opinion is wrong).

"Sure, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Whether it is or it is not is not up to me. And I might be mistaken that it is. So how can it be subjective. I mean by "subjective" that it is not mind-dependent, so that whether it is true, does not depend on whether I know it is true. You just mean (I think) by "subjective) that someone knows it. Of course, if it is known, then someone knows it. That is trivially true. So, in your sense of :subjective: it is trivially true that my knowledge that Quito is the capital is subjective. But in my sense of "subjective" it is simply false that my knowledge that the capital of Quito is subjective, for whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador is not dependent on my mind or on the mind of anyone.

Isa,

This is a bit of a challenge for me but how about the beautiful, most often when someone declares something to be of beauty they do not qualify what it is to be beautiful, what qualites must something have for it too be beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder it is said and it really is true.

In the writings of Mark Twain he speaks of his travels and the uglyest creature he had ever seen the hippopotamus. This is a subjective evaluation and many would agree with this oppinion, is it true, again the truth is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I do not agree with Mark Twains subjective opinion. The truth of the matter could be in ones criteria of beauty, beauty after all can have numerous qualities such as order, composition, rhythm, form and function. Perhaps the subjective opinion of Mark Twain is limited to a few of the said characteristics. For me the hippopotamus is beauty in relation to its adaptation to its environment perhaps even in its form and function. Reguardless whom is right and who is wrong, it comes down to a subjective evaluation.


I do not know if this is quite what you mean't, it does underline however that meaning is a subjective property. If Twain's criteria were those in my list it matters little, perhaps his criteria was a human comparison. This truth of beauty however belongs to the individual subject. Remember that what we call truth is an interpretation, it is not the property of the object, truth is the affirmation of a relational experience, an experience of an individual. We recieve from our environment certain stimulus, this stimulus is conditioned by our senses, and then further conditioned by the processes of our understanding, it is in itself a creation.

Hi Boagie,

Actually, I was thinking of going the other direction with this. To try and come up with the most "objective" (in the most common sense of the word) statement that you could. Again, something that can be wrong, but not a matter of taste. Something like the change on the table equals $1.23.

Ho

Or that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun, or that water is H20, or that when the king (in chess) is in check, and has no legal move, then the king is in checkmate, or that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I have no trouble thinking up objective statements. But I didn't know that was what the thread was all about. I thought it was about knowledge, and whether the statement that A knows that p is true is objective. Has the subject of the thread changed?

The statement that A knows that p is true is objective, since it is not up to anyone whether that statement is true or false. It depends on whether A knows that p is true, and that depends on no one, including A.

The statement that A knows that p is true is objective, since it is not up to anyone whether that statement is true or false. It depends on whether A knows that p is true, and that depends on no one, including A.

Kenneythamy,

The thread is about Truth and Belief. I'm trying to understand a perspective about "subjective knowledge" and how this would handle truth values: seems on subject if you ask me.

And actually, your examples of Mars and H20 would go further in proving Boagie's subjective knowledge claim: unless you have been to Mars or seen atoms. Do you have any first hand information on either of these facts? Or isn't it really that you have learned scientific facts from what you have read or heard someone else say?

Only if A is you. If A is anyone else, it is subjective: unless now you have the ability to read another person's thoughts.

Most of what I know, I have learned from others. I have very little direct knowledge of my own. Why? What has that to do with whether knowledge is subjective? To say that knowledge is subjective is to say that if a person believes he knows something then he knows it. But that is clearly false. I may believe I know that La Paz is the capital of Ecuador, but, since La Paz is not the capital of Ecuador, I do not know it is. What do you mean by the notion that knowledge is subjective. It is that I cannot find out. As I said, of course everything that is known is known by some subject (person). But by that meaning, of course, all knowledge is subjective. But that is just an obvious truism. I really do not know what you mean by "handling truth values", but perhaps this will help: to say that knowledge is subjective is to say the if it is true that I believe I know some proposition, then it follows that I know that proposition. Would that be what you have in mind. Otherwise, you will have to explain what you have in mind as well.

1. Every proposition is true or false. (Law of excluded middle)
2. No proposition is both true and false. (Law of non-contradiction)

These constraints require that every proposition has exactly one truth value that doesn't change its truth value in space or time.

I don't see how it makes any difference who A is. For any A, if A knows that p, then p is true. And if A is someone other than me, whether he knows that p is true depends on whether p is true. If p is not true, then whether or not he believes that he knows that p is true, he does not know p is true.