Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'?

@Cyracuz,

"There are no truths outside the Gates of Eden".

Bob Dylan.

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

I am not saying that it is about language, but that sometimes people make it about language. We can "refute" the definition "truth is what works" by reducing it to a matter of semantics and say that if we don't have a good solution, we will not be able to know the truth. But I am not sure that sticks.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I am not saying that it is about language, but that sometimes people make it about language. We can "refute" the definition "truth is what works" by reducing it to a matter of semantics and say that if we don't have a good solution, we will not be able to know the truth. But I am not sure that sticks.

it doesn't stick

since no matter the meaning and psychological study

the object to its self is still what it is

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I see what what you mean. But we still have to ask "what is it that works?" (assuming it does), and "is this true each time it works?" Semantics or not, if the claim is "Truth is what works", then that claim can be tested to see if indeed it is refutable or not. Language is still part of that process, but it is not the crux of the enquiry.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

The point is that "the test" is subject to agreement about outcomes. That merely pushes the problem of definition of "truth" to a definition of "agreement about what works". (NB agreement can involve self vs self in an internal conversation)

If we actually examine the situation in which the word "truth" arises in real life (outside the philosophy seminar) they tend to indicate a situation in which a decision is made on how to proceed, i.e. confidence in "what works".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I see your point. Could you provide an example of this?

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

The obvious candidate is litigation where "truth" is merely a component in a decision procedure about what to do with the accused. But even questions like "did Henry have six wives" can be thought of in terms of a trivial general knowledge quiz or exam where the testee is engaged in a social act. As for "religious truths" these are clearly involved in reinforcing social structures and communal activities, like what to do at a funeral, or what do or not do on a Sunday. Problem solving using a decision tree (for faulty machinery say) speaks for itself as another example.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Doesn't that concept of truth depend on ones perspective of what 'works' means?

For example, self deception 'works' for the self deceiver because it allows comfort and justification...but... only if the person doesn't look deep enough, nor ask too many questions...and which point it stops working.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

In the final analysis, I believe that truth is just like beauty -- in the eye of the beholder. Is there really any such thing as objective impartial "truth"?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'? [. . .] It's not my own, I think I read it on here actually. It is:
'Truth is what works.'

It's a definition. Definitions cannot be refuted. They are true by fiat within the logical framework of which they are part. Whether the framework describes anything like the real world is an entirely separate question.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I'm wondering if the question behind your question might be whether this definition of truth makes sense. If so, I invite you to figure it out for yourself by reading William James' book Pragmatism (1907), which is available from Project Gutenberg. I especially recomend lecture VI: "The Pragmatist Theory of Truth"

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

In the final analysis, I believe that truth is just like beauty -- in the eye of the beholder. Is there really any such thing as objective impartial "truth"?

I like that, because acting on 'truth' always depends on ones belief of the 'truth'. It suggests something more nebulous than a defined concept - something that relies on the unique internal workings of the beholder Smile

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I agree that truth can be relative but it begs the question, are there objective truths in this world? Off the top of my head, I can think of blue is a truth that doesn't need belief in it to be true. Its 'blueness' is evident by our senses, so would that be an objective truth? But again, Fresco might bring up the point that it is an agreed contract between humans to say that this is blue cos some other people call it azzuro or blau or whatever. But in my mind there is no denying the colour, its just how we communicate it that leads to misunderstandings. I think the same could be said about truth.

2 Replies

@Procrustes,

You might reconsider your views on "blue" if you read this !
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BQQFEVF9KUUC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=Varela+colour+vision&source=bl&ots=_Yp4NfGVqI&sig=wq1q4uDcxKVV6BgsnHRGbq5Vs2o

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

I agree that truth can be relative but it begs the question, are there objective truths in this world? Off the top of my head, I can think of blue is a truth that doesn't need belief in it to be true. Its 'blueness' is evident by our senses, so would that be an objective truth? But again, Fresco might bring up the point that it is an agreed contract between humans to say that this is blue cos some other people call it azzuro or blau or whatever. But in my mind there is no denying the colour, its just how we communicate it that leads to misunderstandings. I think the same could be said about truth.

You are saying that something is "true" blue no matter what the word for "blue" is in one's vocabulary. But have you considered variations in one's organs of visual perception, i.e. the optic nerves? How do you know that you and I are actually seeing the same thing when we both describe it as "blue"? The visual sensation I experience might be quite diffrent from yours. Also, no blue ever stays blue. It fades into a different shade, it changes colors. If truth is supposed to be somehow eternal, how does your analogy recognize these changes as "true?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

You make good points Lustig. The 'blue' analogy isn't suppose to recognize that 'blueness' is eternal but you provided an example of visual perception which was the tangent I was going on. You talk about 'truth' like it's 'supposed' to be 'eternal', like it is a given, but I'm not sure there are any 'universal' truths or 'Truth'. Hence, misunderstandings. We as a species seem so presumptuous to think our 'truths' are so important and therefore 'universal', or that they will stand the test of time. I'm not really sure why people who deal with absolutes think this way. I guess it works for the time being.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Ptolomy invented an astronomical system that is so accurate that you can go from Portugal to New York (about 3000 miles) and land within 50 miles of your destination without a compass, gps, or anything. So the system works but is fundamentally and completely wrong. Just because something is useful or works doesn't mean that it's correct.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

Yes, but it's the next best thing!
Something may be theoretically "true"(by some theoretical standard) but not useful; something else may be practically "true" (effective) but theoretically invalid (by the same standard). So, as far as I'm concerned we live in two worlds, like amphibians, but like amphibians we neither walk nor swim very well.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

Ptolomy invented an astronomical system that is so accurate that you can go from Portugal to New York (about 3000 miles) and land within 50 miles of your destination without a compass, gps, or anything. So the system works but is fundamentally and completely wrong. Just because something is useful or works doesn't mean that it's correct.

In fact; it is because that system required constant correction that it was considered flawed...

1 Reply

@Fido,

To be taken with a grain of salt:
Can't the need for "corrections" be written into the "system" (as an open-ended model), thus making them part of the system's validation ?

1 Reply

Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know