Just read a book (Life's ultimate questions) concerning truth, it was interesting to read. Concerning truth, it defined truth as: The property of preposition that corresponds to how things are. It listed three tests that one can use concerning testing truth; which were, Correspondance, Coherence, and Pragmatism. Did get his (author's) point, but have this question though: How do we evaluate an array of facts given to us to get the truth, beacause truth is objective, and cannot be altered by human preference, desire, and or feelings; HOW DO WE EVALUATE ARRAYS OF FACTS TO GET THE TRUTH?
Am saying this out of an observation, that is, in Christianity there are many denominations, all base their array of facts to "truth" from the bible, and do attack the other denominations for not following that "truth" [as the bible says] . Got fed up to listen to those arrays of facts that they use to support their arguements. If you ask one group (for spiritual help), they are biased to their conviction of "truth" which they all grab from the same book. Now, how does one fully evaluate the array of facts to get absolute truth. I guess some are bullied to following a particular denomination, by manipulation, that is, told scriptural consequences for not subscribing to their prescription or in this premise proposition.
Empirical evidence usually establishes something as being probably true, or probably not true. Absolute truth is, I think, impossible to establish based on experience. As Hume conjectured, that the sun has risen yesterday and every day before is not enough to be absolutely sure that the sun will rise again tomorrow.
'Truth' as suggested by reason alone is probably the nearest we can come to saying something is absolutely true. 1+1=2 - this is often considered absolutely true. However, we only know this is true because of experience.
When people talk about truth as being 'objective', it seems truth is objective in that whatever is true, is true regardless of our own knowledge of that truth. If God exists, he exists even if we do not know it.
I am not sure that we can ever firmly establish the objectivity of any particular truth. Instead, I think the best we can do is evaluate claims according to our own good reason and experience. If we remain open to considering the good reason and experience of others, while absolute truth might be beyond our reach, I think our pursuit of truth will be sufficient with respect to our search for the good life.
Yes, you made it clear that we can support the statement "The cat is on the mat" with empirical evidence.
My post was not a direct response to yours kennethamy, it was a general response to the thread.
Your estimation of "absolutely true" is accurate. Absolutely true is something which is certainly true. Certain... absolute... you got it.
But, if that is what you mean by "absolutely true" it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word, "true", but with your knowledge of the truth. It isn't a different kind of truth at all.
What, then, do you suppose is the meaning of the word "true"?
If you mean "true" - regardless of what we know, or can know - "absolutely true" has a great deal to do with this. Something "absolutely true" or "certainly true" is something we know with absolute certainty to be "true" in the first sense. Obviously, nothing we "know" can be known to be absolutely true.
What different kinds of truth do you suppose there are?
I don't think that specification of what it is to say of a sentence that it is true can be bettered (although it has been expanded an formalized).
And, yes, there are truths that no one knows. For example, it was true that the Moon existed before there were people, so there was no one who knew that the Moon existed, but the Moon existed, nevertheless. And, in the 14th century there were germs, but no one then had ever conceived of germs, much less knew that germs existed.
Bettered? Sure we can. What do you think the expanding and formalization was all about?
If I say "It is true that my dog is sitting next to me" we can say there is something absolutely true - whether or not my dog is sitting next to me. There is also what is true to the best of my knowledge - that my dog seems to be sitting next to me. There is also what is true to the best of your knowledge - that I'm not making any sense, or whatever it is that you can best support from your own experience and good sense.
Yes, I agree. Was this in response to something?
But these are not different kinds of truths. These are different kinds (or degrees) of knowing what is true. One is knowledge with certainty. The other is knowledge without certainty. But that has nothing to do with truth, which is basically what Aristotle said it was. Whenever I know some proposition, I know that it is true. Knowledge implies truth. That is one way knowledge differs from belief.
My second point was that you asked whether I thought there are truths that no one knows, and I gave examples of truths no one knows.But I may very well have misunderstood you.
Some philosophers have, indeed, held that we can know with certainty in some cases. One candidate for certainty (what you continue to call "absolute truth") is that I exist. Can I be mistaken about whether I exist?
Which is why I asked you what kinds of truth you think there are, as I have not attempted to establish different kinds of truth.
I do not think we can ever say a claim is absolutely true; I do not think empiricism extends that far, and as far as I can tell reason is founded empirically.
You say "Whenever I know some proposition, I know that it is true", but how certain is that truth? Again, I'm unconvinced that we can know any proposition as absolutely true - we might be wrong. My dog sitting next to me I know to be true as well as I can know anything to be true, but I lack the ability to establish that truth with absolute certainty.
I asked that?
If you ask me, Descartes was wrong. Brilliant, but misguided.
Yes, I imagine you could very well be mistaken. Especially if "I" has not been defined.
All I claim is that knowledge implies truth. You cannot know what is false. And, I think it is true, as Descartes and Hume held, that empirical knowledge cannot be certain (be known without the possibility of error).
So, why am I unable to know what is false? Why am I unable to know that 1+1=3 is false?