Herein sums up how I feel about truth:
Deflationary theory of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do, from a functional point of view, have some sympathy for the pragmatic theory, but that's because to live requires somewhat of an assumption of certain truths, even if they fall apart philosophically.
The school of thought that trains the mind to disregard all objective references, yet attempts to do so by the use of objective references, is at best inverted logic (or circular reasoning) and at worst fatal ignorance.
Which is EXACTLY why I find it ludicrous to refer to math as any source of logical, let alone objective truth. Mathematics, as I said, is a tautology. It's entirely circular. 1+1=2 simply because those terms are defined as such with reference to each other. So it's got internal coherence, but no reference to anything outside its system. In other words, there is no objective reference that validates mathematics
. Now, Godel demonstrated logical inconsistencies in mathematics that might make it fall apart even as a tautology (which is why Bertrand Russell gave up on trying to demonstrate all of math using symbolic logic), but that doesn't mean it has any objective reference -- it just makes it an imperfect closed system.
Lets put the fragile logical structure of the above statement to the test and see if it can stand. Shall we?
Go for it.
The statement above uses the objective reference of Mathematics as the premise upon which to objectively dismiss its relevance.
No, it uses the irrelevance of mathematics to truth as its own premise. Math is a lexical system built on a human cognitive process of enumeration. That doesn't give it access to truth, though. When you find here on planet earth the PERFECT triangle that demonstrates the Pythagorean theorem, please let us know.
To say "Mathematics" is to refer to the observable science of numbers and their operational interrelations.
Numbers are an observable
science?? Mathematics stems from a lexicon that is internally and tautologically defined, and it's observible ONLY when it is applied to external systems that are already observible. The math itself is never observible.
To say it is "irrelevant" to refer to the same observable science of numbers and their operational interrelations, but to dismiss its objective (observable) evidence and replace it with an alleged objective statement that it unobservable.
It's no "allegation". Please demonstrate ONE
for me. Not one banana
, or one marble
, but ONE
The writer uses language to disprove the relevance of language.
Well, I need to use SOME tool to get my point across, but that pragmatic decision doesn't argue for or against any objective truth in language. Symbolic logic is so central to modern logical philosophy simply because language is too vague. Even the verb TO BE
is vague enough to have at least three completely separate definitions within symbolic logic. So when you say "x IS ...
", there are several ways that statement can be interpreted (predication, existence, identity).
Furthermore, take a look at some modern experimental philosophy to get a sense of how little
basic language draws from TRUTH (which is something that is wholly speculative). Basic concepts like "INTENTIONALITY" and "CAUSE" change in the minds of humans depending on MORAL factors, not FACTUAL ideas. This work has been done by Prof. Josh Knobe. The first link shows how shaky INTENT is. The second is his work on CAUSE. The third is his home page.
Intentional Action and Side-Effects in Ordinary Language