What is truth?

neologist wrote:

A horse for ya, heph.

Neo, you're my hero! I love it! Very Happy

Thank you!

0 Replies

Jason

Quote:

If you have taken any philosophy classes in your lifetime, answer me thiswhat do philosophers mean when they refer to "determining if a proposition is true or not based on logic"? Tell me, because I'd like to know. Let me see how this idea pulls you complete into the world of nonsense and incoherence.

"Truth of a proposition" in (binary)logic can refer to two things

1.A conclusion which is (a) logically valid and(b) is derived from true premises. It merely displaces the "burden of proof/truth" onto the premises. I repeat - the assignment of "truth values" to the premises is irrelevent to the validity of the conclusion.

2. A conjecture which itself can be considered a premise from which can be derived logical consequences or conclusions. The problem with this that no amount of empirically "successful" conclusions establishes the "truth" of the premise, but a single counter-example can establish its falsity. (In this sense "truth" is about "confidence levels" which are antithetical to binary truth values - hence the rise of "multivalued logic")

And my riposte to your remarks about "philosophy classes" is that if you took any my advice to you would be to ask for your money back because they failed to teach you the difference between "truth" and "validity". Perhaps they also failed to teach you that "truth" is undefined in science except in terms of predictive utility/success which is subject to paradigmatic revision. (Popper - "a scientific statement is one which is falsifiable in principle" - i.e. "truth" doesn't come into it !) If these elementary points are "incoherent" to you it implies you are unaware of what "philosophy" is about.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Let me make something clear to you, JB.

J_B wrote:
I haven't read the entire thread but my definition of truth is the same as beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

Truth is not in the eye of the beholderbut beauty is.

Check this out:

You would find a woman beautiful but I would find THAT same woman ugly.
The truth to that is that (to you) you would find THAT woman beautiful, and to me she would not be so beautifulthat is the truth.

What is so difficult to understand?

J_B wrote:
We each look at life, love, lessons (morality) through the lens of our own upbringing, culture, exposures and experiences.

You are rightbut that doesn't affect if a proposition is true or not.

J_B wrote:
Truth can only mean what it means to me. Your truth can only be true for you.

Hope you know that you are metaphorically speaking here.

J_B wrote:
There is a universal truth, but none of us know what it is.

We don't know? WOW!

Let's try this...what would be the truth to the following?

If today is Wednesday, tomorrow is Thursday. Can that be trueor false?

Jason, today is Thursday only by convenience. It might be something else altogether. We have decided for the sake of clarity in communication to set names to time, but it has no basis in ultimate truth.

It's true that we can differ on defining truth, but that simply makes my point. Truth is seen through an individual lens and can only represent an individual reality.

There are true facts as defined by man. One plus one equals two because we say so. That doesn't mean it represents Truth.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

"Truth of a proposition" in (binary)logic can refer to two things

1.A conclusion which is (a) logically valid and(b) is derived from true premises. It merely displaces the "burden of proof/truth" onto the premises. I repeat - the assignment of "truth values" to the premises is irrelevent to the validity of the conclusion.

So? What is your point? Is this the evidence that reveals the nonexistence of "truth"?
What the hell are you trying to say?

fresco wrote:

2. A conjecture which itself can be considered a premise from which can be derived logical consequences or conclusions. The problem with this that no amount of empirically "successful" conclusions establishes the "truth" of the premise, but a single counter-example can establish its falsity. (In this sense "truth" is about "confidence levels" which are antithetical to binary truth values - hence the rise of "multivalued logic")

Waitaminuteare you trying to say that truth doesn't exist because of empirical knowledge? What is this conjunction of nonsense? Can you write at least an idea that would seem logical to the argument at hand?

fresco wrote:

And my riposte to your remarks about "philosophy classes" is that if you took any my advice to you would be to ask for your money back because they failed to teach you the difference between "truth" and "validity".

What advice? Have you lost it, maan?
And my response to your paragraph is that you may not know the definition to the word "truth" or "validity" and therefore, this paragraph constitutes as collective nonsense.

fresco wrote:

Perhaps they also failed to teach you that "truth" is undefined in science except in terms of predictive utility/success which is subject to paradigmatic revision.

Science proves the "validity" of an entity via trial and error. I hope you know this.
Is it true that many numbers of vaccines have been created to eliminate (from the human body) many numbers of diseases throughout the years? Is this statement truth or false?
What are you trying to prove, man?

fresco wrote:

(Popper - "a scientific statement is one which is falsifiable in principle" - i.e. "truth" doesn't come into it !) If these elementary points are "incoherent" to you it implies you are unaware of what "philosophy" is about.

I do not know why you keep saying that I may not understand what you are saying when it comes to philosophyI do, really. But frankly, I don't know what your point is. If you want to say something, say it.
The argument between us is this:
I say "this is blue," while you say "this is dark blue."
You seem to be drowning yourself in your own vomit, my friend.

PS: didn't you learn in school to write logical and clear examples of what you are talking about in your paper so you won't confuse the reader? And if you did learn it, put it into practice here.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Jason, today is Thursday only by convenience. It might be something else altogether. We have decided for the sake of clarity in communication to set names to time, but it has no basis in ultimate truth.

What in the world is this? What are you saying? If today is Wednesday, tomorrow may be something else besides Thursday? What is this nonsense? But it is the "law" of communication and logic that define the term, kidand we (human beings) are responsible to interpret them. What is your point? Again, "ultimate truth" may or may not exist (and that's the truth)work with what you've got.

J_B wrote:

It's true that we can differ on defining truth, but that simply makes my point. Truth is seen through an individual lens and can only represent an individual reality.

More symbolic nonsense.

J_B wrote:

There are true facts as defined by man.

Bingo!!!
You are learningkeep it up.

J_B wrote:

One plus one equals two because we say so.

You are rightone plus one don't always equal to two. But we can apply such rule to other things.

J_B wrote:

That doesn't mean it represents Truth.

It doesonly to the things that applies to.

PS: what kind of truth are you talking about? Be specific.

0 Replies

I'm on my way out of town and will have to continue this another time, but Truth (vs truth) in a spiritual or religious sense, which is the name of this forum btw, can only be defined by the individual for himself. Others try to assume their truth = Truth, but I don't accept that man has ever gotten it right and perhaps never will.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

I'm on my way out of town and will have to continue this another time,

Have a great trip.

J_B wrote:

but Truth (vs truth) in a spiritual or religious sense, which is the name of this forum btw, can only be defined by the individual for himself.

You are presenting "truth" in its symbolic context here. Can't you see that?

J_B wrote:

Others try to assume their truth = Truth, but I don't accept that man has ever gotten it right and perhaps never will.

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not.
Truth is truth whether you agree with it or not. What "kind of truth" are you talking about?

0 Replies

Truth as in the big questions that religions try to answer. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here and how did we get here? Why do bad things happen?

My taxi just arrived, catch you next week.

0 Replies

Jason,

If you would like to define "existence" I will tell you whether "truth exists".

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Truth as in the big questions that religions try to answer.

If people are looking for these answers in religion, they will most likely fail to get them.

J_B wrote:

What is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life is happiness.

J_B wrote:

Why are we here and how did we get here?

Don't know. Probably it was a random event of the cosmos. Who knows?

J_B wrote:

Why do bad things happen?

Be specific.

J_B wrote:

My taxi just arrived, catch you next week.

See ya. Have it happy.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Jason,

If you would like to define "existence" I will tell you whether "truth exists".

You are getting into uncharted territory, kid.

Let me ask you a couple of questionsfor the sake of this argument (if you want me to define "existence).

Do you exist?

Does this "reality" exist?

Are you dreaming all this?

Are you going Matrix on me now?

Does truth exist?

This is one definition of the word "existence": "The fact or state of existing; being."

Now, what is your point?

0 Replies

Quote:

This is one definition of the word "existence": "The fact or state of existing; being."

I will take this as your definition then.

According to this "facts" are axiomatic. If "facts" are "truths" then the question of "the existence of truth" is meaningless because you have stated a tautology. The position that facts/truths are axiomatic is essentially one of "naive realism" on which concepts such as "objectivity" are based.

I tend to go with Wittgenstein on this type of question.....the meaning of "truth" (or any concept) is determined by its contextual usage, In this respect it usually seems to imply "consensus" and is therefore in accordance with the statement "truth exists as a social construction".

NB "Reality as a social construction" is not "uncharted waters" even though
you might be unwilling to set sail in them.

0 Replies

There you go Jason. In your taxi.

I dont think you can hold a candle to Fresco.

0 Replies

Steve,

In the words of Neddy Seagoon ..."Forward with leather !" Laughing

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

I will take this as your definition then.

It is a definition nonethelessa universal definition.

fresco wrote:

According to this "facts" are axiomatic. If "facts" are "truths" then the question of "the existence of truth" is meaningless because you have stated a tautology. The position that facts/truths are axiomatic is essentially one of "naive realism" on which concepts such as "objectivity" are based.

What kind of "truth" are you talking about? Are you talking about the "truth" that ONLY lies in the "ultimate reality," or the truth that lies in the "reality" that we human beings are able to perceive?
The "ultimate reality" may not existprobably a product of our own consciousness.
I work with what I got in this "reality." I don't know about you.

fresco wrote:

I tend to go with Wittgenstein on this type of question.....the meaning of "truth" (or any concept) is determined by its contextual usage, In this respect it usually seems to imply "consensus" and is therefore in accordance with the statement

Is this the example that would debunk my argument? Why are you including this here?

fresco wrote:

"truth exists as a social construction".

What is your point? Have I said the opposite of this? Who do you think gave the definition to the word?

fresco wrote:

NB "Reality as a social construction" is not "uncharted waters" even though
you might be unwilling to set sail in them.

If you knew what I meant when I said that you were "going into uncharted waters," you would have not arrived to this nonsense.

What do philosophers mean when they refer to "finding out if a proposition is TRUE or not logically"? Are they speaking literally or allegorically? What do they mean by it? Tell me.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

There you go Jason. In your taxi.

I dont think you can hold a candle to Fresco.

0 Replies

Jason,

Our communication problems arise from your lack of awareness of different levels of discourse. For example when you ask (twice)

....."What do philosophers mean when they refer to "finding out if a proposition is TRUE or not logically"?....

...this is basically apocryphal and is couched in layman's phraseology which bears little resemblance to what "philosophers" actually do. This question itself, coupled with the fact that you reject answers which are stated at an accepted philosophical level implies that you do simply not understand the level shift. Your frequent use of the word "nonsense" merely confirms this.

The chess player is unlikely to find much pleasure in tic tac toe !

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Jason,

Our communication problems arise from your lack of awareness of different levels of discourse. For example when you ask (twice)

I do understand the facts and examples, but you just simple can't articulate your argument firmly and coherently.

fresco wrote:

....."What do philosophers mean when they refer to "finding out if a proposition is TRUE or not logically"?....

...this is basically apocryphal and is couched in layman's phraseology which bears little resemblance to what "philosophers" actually do.

Is apocryphal? This just proves that you are so full of it that you can't even stand, fresco. Have you ever been in a philosophy class before?
This is what philosophers do. They try to understand the world around them LOGICALLYthey find out if a proposition is true or not based on human reasoning. Where did you get all this NONSENSE? Who the hell told you this?

fresco wrote:

This question itself, coupled with the fact that you reject answers which are stated at an accepted philosophical level implies that you do simply not understand the level shift.

Philosophical reasoning, I do not reject. I understand what you are sayingbut the purpose of your argument renders itself futile when you can't express it lucidly. What I do reject is the argument that you stand behind so firmly, which states that "truth" does not existwhen you give me irrelevant examples that prove nothing at allabout this argument.

fresco wrote:

Your frequent use of the word "nonsense" merely confirms this.

My common use of the word "nonsense" is part of my personal expression that draws attention to your lack of understanding of the obvious, when you give me unnecessary evidence that have nothing to do with your argument.

fresco wrote:

The chess player is unlikely to find much pleasure in tic tac toe !

Are you talking allegorically, logically, or literally?
Or is this more collective nonsense?
Or probably is your truth not surprising.

0 Replies

Hum.
The lack of comprehension and the excess of pompousness make for a spicy meatball!
This is entertaining.

0 Replies

Once in awhile, some topics are beyond the comprehension of people no matter how it's explained. fresco has done a yeoman's job to explain all there is to know about truth and logic.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know