6
   

Truth vs. Fact

 
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 03:20 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

The point I was making is that a statement can never be true without a proof. Or a supporting base.

Truth relies on proof. A statement without proof can not be said to be true


Well, I disagree with both of these statements and I think you are falling into the same "subjectivist" trap that Fresky has when you make them.

Truth does not depend on what we "say" or what we know. That is subjective and irrelevant to "truth."

It's not what I "know" that makes a thing true or false. Nor does my inability to prove a "fact" make it untrue.

I can assume, and even claim to "know," that the universe would still exist even if the entire human race went extinct. I can't literally "prove" that. I can't be said to "know" it from personal experience.

I could be right, or I could be wrong, in my assumptions and conclusions, but either way, the universe either would, or would not, still exist in that event.

That would be the "fact" (or "truth"). It couldn't be both true and false--it's one or the other, even if we can't know or prove which one is "true."

The same analysis would apply to any statement I make, such as, "there are unicorns living on the surface of a planet (which we have detected) 10 light years from here." There either are, or are not, unicorns living there. Only one of those two possibilities can be true. It doesn't depend on what I know, or can prove. The one that comports with the actual facts is true. The one that doesn't is false.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:35 am
To quote from the OP....
Quote:
I've been really interested in theories of truth.

....Had the questioner actually explored those theories (e.g.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/) he/she would have covered the ground that the current posts are skirting round....
Quote:
However, I view truth as something concrete and unchangeable
(emphasis mine) ....
....This potentially raises secondary points about (a) the transient nature of "I" as a possible succession of observer states and (b) the human urge to seek 'certainty' or 'unchanging absolutes' which commonly manifests as religious concepts such as 'an eternal entity'.

I therefore repeat that without anchoring their comments by reference to both the 'theories of truth' or by addressing the secondary issues, respondents will tend to play what Wittgenstein called 'language games' because the words 'truth' and 'fact' will have shifting connotations both within and between speakers as the thread progresses.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
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. » Truth vs. Fact
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/22/2017 at 08:00:12