fresco
 
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:55 am
Pontius Pilate allegedly didn't know. Do you ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 14 • Views: 12,650 • Replies: 269
No top replies

 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:11 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Pontius Pilate allegedly didn't know. Do you ?


Actually, when asked, what is truth, Pontius Pilate would not answer. That is quite different from his not knowing. But Aristotle did answer: Aristotle wrote that to say what is true is to say that what is, is, and not to say that what is not, is not. Now that seems to me to be a very good answer, although, of course, it needs to be fleshed out. It is fleshed out in Alfred Tarski's classic paper, "The Semantic Definition of Truth".
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:35 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
came into the world ... to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to [my] voice", to which Pilate famously replied, "What is truth?" (John 18:38)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:03 pm
Truth is that which cannot but be.
dalesvp
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:43 pm
@fresco,
Truth from Cayce, Doyle and Phineas P. Quimby:

http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.php?page=truth

Personally I cotton to Quimby's take on Truth.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.


Hi Ken ! How are you ?
If a true is true then it is true and cannot but be true given it is already true...
Same is to say if Barack is the President then he is the president...Of course, someone else could have been the president if something else did happen.
But it did n´t did it ?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 01:39 pm
@fresco,
Hi All!

Truth is a lie!

Kind regards.
Mark...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 01:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.


Hi Ken ! How are you ?
If a true is true then it is true and cannot but be true given it is already true...
Same is to say if Barack is the President then he is the president...Of course, someone else could have been the president if something else did happen.
But it did n´t did it ?


Of course, if it is true then it is true. That is just a trivial truism. Like, if it is a duck, it is a duck. What is news about that? But what is false is that if it is true then it had to be true. That is obviously false. It is true that Obama is president, but it is not true that he had to be president. It is true that Obama is president, and if it is true that Obama is president, then Obama is president, but just because Obama is president, that does not mean that he might not have been president. If his opponent, John McCain had been elected then he not only might not have been president, he would not have been president, and you would have said that if John McCain is president, then John McCain is president. which would have also been true, but noting to shout to the philosophical world either! You are committing the same modal fallacy that is a disease on this forum. It is trivially true that if Obama is president, then Obama is president; and it is obviously false that if Obama is president then Obama had to be president. So, you can choose between trivial truth and obvious falsity. Your choice.
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 01:53 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All!

Truth is a lie!

Kind regards.
Mark...


How profound!
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.


Hi Ken ! How are you ?
If a true is true then it is true and cannot but be true given it is already true...
Same is to say if Barack is the President then he is the president...Of course, someone else could have been the president if something else did happen.
But it did n´t did it ?


Of course, if it is true then it is true. That is just a trivial truism. Like, if it is a duck, it is a duck. What is news about that? But what is false is that if it is true then it had to be true. That is obviously false. It is true that Obama is president, but it is not true that he had to be president. It is true that Obama is president, and if it is true that Obama is president, then Obama is president, but just because Obama is president, that does not mean that he might not have been president. If his opponent, John McCain had been elected then he not only might not have been president, he would not have been president, and you would have said that if John McCain is president, then John McCain is president. which would have also been true, but noting to shout to the philosophical world either! You are committing the same modal fallacy that is a disease on this forum. It is trivially true that if Obama is president, then Obama is president; and it is obviously false that if Obama is president then Obama had to be president. So, you can choose between trivial truth and obvious falsity. Your choice.


Sometimes I have the impression that you don´t read what I write...
If True, Necessarily True given it is, factual, True...
It is what it is, is trivial, but you are the one who don´t seam to get it, otherwise I would n´t be debating it...
If it could have been otherwise it would n´t, by definition, be True...hence, once true necessarily true...of course before that becomes an actuality many things can be, but how does that has anything to do with true ?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 03:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.


Hi Ken ! How are you ?
If a true is true then it is true and cannot but be true given it is already true...
Same is to say if Barack is the President then he is the president...Of course, someone else could have been the president if something else did happen.
But it did n´t did it ?


Of course, if it is true then it is true. That is just a trivial truism. Like, if it is a duck, it is a duck. What is news about that? But what is false is that if it is true then it had to be true. That is obviously false. It is true that Obama is president, but it is not true that he had to be president. It is true that Obama is president, and if it is true that Obama is president, then Obama is president, but just because Obama is president, that does not mean that he might not have been president. If his opponent, John McCain had been elected then he not only might not have been president, he would not have been president, and you would have said that if John McCain is president, then John McCain is president. which would have also been true, but noting to shout to the philosophical world either! You are committing the same modal fallacy that is a disease on this forum. It is trivially true that if Obama is president, then Obama is president; and it is obviously false that if Obama is president then Obama had to be president. So, you can choose between trivial truth and obvious falsity. Your choice.


Sometimes I have the impression that you don´t read what I write...
If True, Necessarily True given it is, factual, True...
It is what it is, is trivial, but you are the one who don´t seam to get it, otherwise I would n´t be debating it...
If it could have been otherwise it would n´t, by definition, be True...hence, once true necessarily true...of course before that becomes an actuality many things can be, but how does that has anything to do with true ?


But of course it is a trivial truth that if p is true, then p is true. That is simply a tautology. If something is a duck, then it is a duck. If something is a mouse, then it is a mouse. And, equally, if a proposition is true, then it is true. Big deal! But that is different from saying that if something is true, then it is necessarily true. For example, it Obama is president, then he isn't necessarily president. For he might not have been president. And if he might have not been president, then, even if he is president, he is not necessarily president. Surely you can see that. Don't you agree that Obama might not have been president? If you do, then you have to agree that even it it is true that he is president, he is not necessarily president. Again, you are confusing: (a) If Obama is president then Obama is president (which is true, but trivial) with, (b) If Obama is president, then he must be president which is not trivial, but is certainly false, since Obama is president, but he need not be the president. So, again, you have to choose between: true but trivial, and significant but false.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 03:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.


Hi Ken ! How are you ?
If a true is true then it is true and cannot but be true given it is already true...
Same is to say if Barack is the President then he is the president...Of course, someone else could have been the president if something else did happen.
But it did n´t did it ?


Of course, if it is true then it is true. That is just a trivial truism. Like, if it is a duck, it is a duck. What is news about that? But what is false is that if it is true then it had to be true. That is obviously false. It is true that Obama is president, but it is not true that he had to be president. It is true that Obama is president, and if it is true that Obama is president, then Obama is president, but just because Obama is president, that does not mean that he might not have been president. If his opponent, John McCain had been elected then he not only might not have been president, he would not have been president, and you would have said that if John McCain is president, then John McCain is president. which would have also been true, but noting to shout to the philosophical world either! You are committing the same modal fallacy that is a disease on this forum. It is trivially true that if Obama is president, then Obama is president; and it is obviously false that if Obama is president then Obama had to be president. So, you can choose between trivial truth and obvious falsity. Your choice.


Sometimes I have the impression that you don´t read what I write...
If True, Necessarily True given it is, factual, True...
It is what it is, is trivial, but you are the one who don´t seam to get it, otherwise I would n´t be debating it...
If it could have been otherwise it would n´t, by definition, be True...hence, once true necessarily true...of course before that becomes an actuality many things can be, but how does that has anything to do with true ?


But of course it is a trivial truth that if p is true, then p is true. That is simply a tautology. If something is a duck, then it is a duck. If something is a mouse, then it is a mouse. And, equally, if a proposition is true, then it is true. Big deal! But that is different from saying that if something is true, then it is necessarily true. For example, it Obama is president, then he isn't necessarily president. For he might not have been president. And if he might have not been president, then, even if he is president, he is not necessarily president. Surely you can see that. Don't you agree that Obama might not have been president? If you do, then you have to agree that even it it is true that he is president, he is not necessarily president. Again, you are confusing: (a) If Obama is president then Obama is president (which is true, but trivial) with, (b) If Obama is president, then he must be president which is not trivial, but is certainly false, since Obama is president, but he need not be the president. So, again, you have to choose between: true but trivial, and significant but false.


In what possible fruitful sense would I apply the Logic that if causes were different results also would be different...
No, No ! Please don´t tell me again, I save you from that burden...allow me.
For instance you would say something like:
To make a fire, wood may be a condition yet not a necessary condition since I can make a fire without wood can´t I ?
And my answer to you would be that such fire is different in nature although quite similar to any other fire...you see I don´t think to have enough proof on the ultimate nature on what is around me while you do...and that and that alone seams to be the problem...to me Identity (in the sense of identicalness) is mainly in concepts and they're degree of accuracy against other concepts on what we observe !
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:46 pm
I see the formalists have risen to this one as expected. I was hoping for someone other than me to raise the pragmatist view as illustrated by Rorty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp73xE_AoVc&feature=related
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 07:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Truth is that which cannot but be.


Well that is certainly not true, since it is true, for example that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but if he had not been elected, then he would not have been the president of the United States. You are saying that all truths are necessary truths, and that is clearly false.


Hi Ken ! How are you ?
If a true is true then it is true and cannot but be true given it is already true...
Same is to say if Barack is the President then he is the president...Of course, someone else could have been the president if something else did happen.
But it did n´t did it ?


Of course, if it is true then it is true. That is just a trivial truism. Like, if it is a duck, it is a duck. What is news about that? But what is false is that if it is true then it had to be true. That is obviously false. It is true that Obama is president, but it is not true that he had to be president. It is true that Obama is president, and if it is true that Obama is president, then Obama is president, but just because Obama is president, that does not mean that he might not have been president. If his opponent, John McCain had been elected then he not only might not have been president, he would not have been president, and you would have said that if John McCain is president, then John McCain is president. which would have also been true, but noting to shout to the philosophical world either! You are committing the same modal fallacy that is a disease on this forum. It is trivially true that if Obama is president, then Obama is president; and it is obviously false that if Obama is president then Obama had to be president. So, you can choose between trivial truth and obvious falsity. Your choice.


Sometimes I have the impression that you don´t read what I write...
If True, Necessarily True given it is, factual, True...
It is what it is, is trivial, but you are the one who don´t seam to get it, otherwise I would n´t be debating it...
If it could have been otherwise it would n´t, by definition, be True...hence, once true necessarily true...of course before that becomes an actuality many things can be, but how does that has anything to do with true ?


But of course it is a trivial truth that if p is true, then p is true. That is simply a tautology. If something is a duck, then it is a duck. If something is a mouse, then it is a mouse. And, equally, if a proposition is true, then it is true. Big deal! But that is different from saying that if something is true, then it is necessarily true. For example, it Obama is president, then he isn't necessarily president. For he might not have been president. And if he might have not been president, then, even if he is president, he is not necessarily president. Surely you can see that. Don't you agree that Obama might not have been president? If you do, then you have to agree that even it it is true that he is president, he is not necessarily president. Again, you are confusing: (a) If Obama is president then Obama is president (which is true, but trivial) with, (b) If Obama is president, then he must be president which is not trivial, but is certainly false, since Obama is president, but he need not be the president. So, again, you have to choose between: true but trivial, and significant but false.


In what possible fruitful sense would I apply the Logic that if causes were different results also would be different...
No, No ! Please don´t tell me again, I save you from that burden...allow me.
For instance you would say something like:
To make a fire, wood may be a condition yet not a necessary condition since I can make a fire without wood can´t I ?
And my answer to you would be that such fire is different in nature although quite similar to any other fire...you see I don´t think to have enough proof on the ultimate nature on what is around me while you do...and that and that alone seams to be the problem...to me Identity (in the sense of identicalness) is mainly in concepts and they're degree of accuracy against other concepts on what we observe !



What in the world are you talking about? How does any of this to do with the issue, or with my post?
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:33 pm
@fresco,
Theories are only theories, but I sympathize most with the correspondance theory of truth. That theory seems to fit well within current epistemological debates on justification. Especially epistemology focused on propositions.

As for Pontius Pilate, God probably hardened his heart to the Truth, as he did Pharoh. Either way, he would have been no more closer to the Truth than I can be.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:43 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:

Theories are only theories, but I sympathize most with the correspondance theory of truth. That theory seems to fit well within current epistemological debates on justification. Especially epistemology focused on propositions.

As for Pontius Pilate, God probably hardened his heart to the Truth, as he did Pharoh. Either way, he would have been no more closer to the Truth than I can be.


Some theories are only theories, which is to say mere speculations supported by little or no evidence. But it is hardly true that all theories are unsupported by evidence. Germ theory has masses of evidence to support it, and so does the theory of Relativity, and atomic theory. So it is simply false that all theories are only theories.

The correspondence theory of truth is a theory that is supported by a good deal of evidence, and you yourself say, since it seems to explain pretty well how we talk and think about truth. And that fact gives it a good deal of support so that although it is a theory, it is not only a theory.
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:52 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Some theories are only theories, which is to say mere speculations supported by little or no evidence. But it is hardly true that all theories are unsupported by evidence. Germ theory has masses of evidence to support it, and so does the theory of Relativity, and atomic theory. So it is simply false that all theories are only theories.

The correspondence theory of truth is a theory that is supported by a good deal of evidence, and you yourself say, since it seems to explain pretty well how we talk and think about truth. And that fact gives it a good deal of support so that although it is a theory, it is not only a theory.


Many theories have had relatively good evidence and turned out to be just plain wrong. Perhaps I was too vague in saying that all theories are just theories, but they are. Some are more viable than others and some serve higher purposes than others, but they are all limited in that they are just possible explanations.

So, should we have a different name for theories that are supported by a good amount of evidence and theories that are not? It would seem so, because then theories wouldn't be both i) supported by evidence and ii) not supported by evidence.

Perhaps we should call i) bullshit and ii) theories. But then we have to ask at what point do we delineate when we have enough evidence for an explanation to be a theory and not bullshit.

ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:59 pm
But the nature of truth isn't an empirical matter, it's a matter of definition.
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:06 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

But the nature of truth isn't an empirical matter, it's a matter of definition.


Or a matter of practicality. I think the Pragmatic Theory of Truth would make truth an empirical matter. I can't back that up, though.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is truth ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 11:13:04