Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'?

Absoulutely... And that is what the church had; in teams of very able mathamaticians working with a failed model... But; Copernicus did not have a correct model either, and not until Newton did we have an accurate and predicatble model based upon and improved sense of gravity... You could say as much of math, that it is never exact or reliable when an abstraction of actual reality, but can usually be corrected in situ... Language as a model of meaning is hardly exact, but can be corrected as we go...

Correct... Math is always true to itself, and never exact or true when applied to reality... Consider how large were the first nuclear weapons, and great considering the effort taken to refine the material, and study required to properly assemble the material at the proper rate of speed to effect the desired reaction... Sort of a bummer for the Japanese; but at least they proved the value of math/science... It took an entire plane to lift one bomb then... The first Thermo nuclear device we set off was as large as a semi-trailer... I can't speak for thermo nuclear devices now, but we can now fit a nuclear device in a briefcase... Once you have a correct model, you can work on the scale.. The problem is that we cannot come up with a correct model of morality except the oldest, that it is good to love ones friends, and to destroy ones enemeis...We still serve the Old Testament God..

Well stated and true.

http://able2know.org/topic/181688-1

What do you mean by "what works"?

My interpretation of truth:
What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth.

You're right, if there were such a thing as absolute truth, it would be always correct, everywehre, all the time, under any condition....Trouble is it doesn't exist.
Reminds me of Stendhal's excuse for God (referring to all the suffering by good people): He doesn't exist.

You're right, if there were such a thing as absolute truth, it would be always correct, everywehre, all the time, under any condition....Trouble is it doesn't exist.
Reminds me of Stendhal's excuse for God (referring to all the suffering by good people): He doesn't exist.

Then truth is not what we tell; but simply what is....

The problem with that has always been accurate understanding of what is...

...and the problem with that is that two people can both have accurate understandings of what is, and not agree.

That, I guess, is the essence of Nietzsche's perspectivism.

Would it be tautologous to say the truth is truthful?

Nevermind...

I would say not, only because that is what truth is, or has compared to non-truth... Truth has more truth, and lies are truth lite... No one would ever bother to try to sell a lie that did not contain a substantial portion of truth... Ad men can sell you wind if the truth they sell is in their understanding of human nature, and they can pump you up with it... Most of the time we spend our money buying a higher opinion of ourselves which few can share... The reason televangelists can suck so much money out of the pockets of the old is easy enough to see... Old people are lonely, and are bedeviled by regrets, and guilt, and as they see their material lives degrading into hoplessness they will spend all they own on hope for eternal life free from all that makes life life, in short: Challenge...

People can usually look at some object, like the moon, and agree objectively that it is the moon... People disagree as to the meaning of what they see...Considering that when we communicate, what we communicate is meanings, and that meaning is something we will always see in the perspective of our own being, disagreements as well as misunderstandings are inevitable, but are no reason to give up on anything... Failures of communication are normal, but are only an invitation to keep trying...There are always some trying to pass untruth off as communication... When we communicate what we communicate is truth, and truth we give because it is as essential as food, water, and oxygen to our lives; and is something all need to prepare for the future... Those who pass untruth off as communication do to each other, and even to themselves, a positive injury which should never be forgiven... Truth, as honesty is a virtue; but millions, and even billions are made out of dishonesty, and for a society to survive, it cannot honor wealth made out of dishonor and dishonesty, for in this fashion even the money is made as worthless as it is dishonest... We write trust on our dollars; but what is the world we must live in where trust is made impossible by all those willing to lie for wealth???

Truth is the positive value we give to propositions about the structure of reality. I use the term, "reality" for what is.

To me "truth" is a proposition or statement about what is. It has to do with accuracy. Truthfulness has to do with the honesty of the statement. Propositions may be true or false (or somewhere in between); people may be truthful or deceitful (or somewhere in between).

To me "truth" is a proposition or statement about what is. It has to do with accuracy. Truthfulness has to do with the honesty of the statement. Propositions may be true or false (or somewhere in between); people may be truthful or deceitful (or somewhere in between).

Re(s)ality, as in Res; Latin for thing, is about structures, forms... Meaning and value are about synonymous... The way I would say it is: Physical reality has both being and meaning, and moral reality has only meaning without being...

Truth is already within us, we remember it when we lift from our minds all those "answers" handed down to us by parents, schools, religion, etc. etc. etc.

Hi JL,
Someday I may be tempted to read Nietzsche.