true v. believed to be true

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110865 wrote:

To say we use language to reason is not to say that reason is just words. The first is true, the second, if it means anything at all, is false.

I never used the phrase "just words." I said "language." And I have an immense respect for both language and reason. After all, I've been hanging out on this forum often enough.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110866 wrote:

I never used the phrase "just words." I said "language." And I have an immense respect for both language and reason. After all, I've been hanging out on this forum often enough.

What else is reason if not words

If reason is nothing else than words, then doesn't that mean that reason is just words?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110869 wrote:

What else is reason if not words

If reason is nothing else than words, then doesn't that mean that reason is just words?

No. "Just" is pejorative there. A question is not a statement.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110839 wrote:

How would language help us make the distinction? Or, for that matter, emotion? Or for that matter, intuition?

hi kennethamy, i think you misread the originally posted question. it asks which is the LEAST useful. Now, our convo turned into a discussion of the merits/weaknesses of each, and that's fine. But you seem to have misunderstood my 1st post; i said that
language and emotion were weaker, but i now agree that language is more useful than emotion. See the heirarchy i made and read the rest of the thread, its really interesting =)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110873 wrote:

No. "Just" is pejorative there. A question is not a statement.

A rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. I don't understand how "just" is pejorative there. Doesn't is just mean "only" in that context? If not, then what? If I ask. "Isn't 3 just the square root of 9?" what am I saying other than that 3 is only the square root of 9?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110923 wrote:

A rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. I don't understand how "just" is pejorative there. Doesn't is just mean "only" in that context? If not, then what? If I ask. "Isn't 3 just the square root of 9?" what am I saying other than that 3 is only the square root of 9?

No, that's kind of a misleading example. Reason IS words. Reason is also: wit, logicality, intelligence, understanding (etc...) The square root of three IS only nine, but that doesn't mean something like reason can have more than one aspect.

Here's a better example, for the true statement that "Reason is words". A computer can have a bunch of stuff inside it. It can now have up to, and over, one thousand gigs of information. It can surf the web, send other people information, entertain you in many ways (etc...). But without a screen, how would you see all of the 1000 gigs?

screen=language

1000 gigs= reason.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110923 wrote:

A rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. I don't understand how "just" is pejorative there. Doesn't is just mean "only" in that context? If not, then what? If I ask. "Isn't 3 just the square root of 9?" what am I saying other than that 3 is only the square root of 9?

What my question is a rhetorical question? Is this a rhetorical question? Are such things dependent upon the interpretation of the reader? Are questions better than statements to the degree that they are not so committed to the possibilities they explore?

---------- Post added 12-13-2009 at 03:57 PM ----------

Quinn;110939 wrote:

screen=language

1000 gigs= reason.

Nice analogy. But can you demonstrate a languageless reason, or are the two really the same? Or are they Siamese twins?

@Quinn phil,

Quinn;110939 wrote:

No, that's kind of a misleading example. Reason IS words. Reason is also: wit, logicality, intelligence, understanding (etc...) The square root of three IS only nine, but that doesn't mean something like reason can have more than one aspect.

Here's a better example, for the true statement that "Reason is words". A computer can have a bunch of stuff inside it. It can now have up to, and over, one thousand gigs of information. It can surf the web, send other people information, entertain you in many ways (etc...). But without a screen, how would you see all of the 1000 gigs?

screen=language

1000 gigs= reason.

Misleading example of what?

@kennethamy,

Your example of the square root of 9 being 3.

@Quinn phil,

Quinn;111048 wrote:

Your example of the square root of 9 being 3.

Why? What do you take it to be an example of? The question, "Isn't 3 just the square root of 9?" ia meant to be an example of a rhetorical question. So that 3 is the square root of 9 is not an example at all. The whole sentence is the example. So, I don't know what you mean.

@3k1yp2,

F.C.S. Schiller used the analogy of a chair to make clear what he meant by the phrase that truth is made: just as a carpenter makes a chair out of existing materials and doesn't create it out of nothing, truth is a transformation of our experience-but this doesn't imply reality is something we're free to construct or imagine as we please.
Pragmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111375 wrote:

F.C.S. Schiller used the analogy of a chair to make clear what he meant by the phrase that truth is made: just as a carpenter makes a chair out of existing materials and doesn't create it out of nothing, truth is a transformation of our experience-but this doesn't imply reality is something we're free to construct or imagine as we please.
Pragmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chair is an example of truth? How is that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111405 wrote:

The chair is an example of truth? How is that?

I can not resist.
Kind of like concrete is an example of hardness (pun intended).

---------- Post added 12-14-2009 at 06:50 PM ----------

Reconstructo;110860 wrote:

That's what I mean. You use language to reason. What else is reason if not words? It seems to me that the limits of language are the limits of reason. This is why I value metaphor. By means of it we develop new concepts which extend the possibilities of reason.

I just think you are really in error about this. Animals reason they use purposeful activity or action to acheive or accomplish ends. Humans engage in meaningful purposeful activity all the time without langauge. Are you saying babies can not reason. How do we learn language. Just observe yourself daily. How many things you do without the medium of language. Anyway just a suggestion to reconsider.

@prothero,

prothero;111415 wrote:

I can not resist.
I just think you are really in error about this. Animals reason they use purposeful activity or action to acheive or accomplish ends. Humans engage in meaningful purposeful activity all the time without langauge. Are you saying babies can not reason. How do we learn language. Just observe yourself daily. How many things you do without the medium of language. Anyway just a suggestion to reconsider.

Well, I respect you as a thinker, Prothero. But I must object. It's all a matter of terms of course but below is Wiki. ( I've always associated reason with language. It does seem to derive from logos.) --still it's all a matter of terms, and I would never deny intelligence to animals.

Reason is the mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. The meaning of the word "reason" in this sense overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of "reason" in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", rather than "reasoned" or "reasonable". The concept of 'reason' is closely related to the concepts of language and logic, as reflected in the multiple meanings of the Greek word "logos", the root of logic, which translated into Latin became "ratio" and then in French "raison", from which the English word "reason" was derived. Reason is often contrasted with authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith, and is thought by rationalists to be more reliable than these in discovering what is true or what is best

@3k1yp2,

i agree with prothero to an extent; i think language and reason are VERY closely linked and symbiotic, but one can reason without language as illustrated by the examples prothero provided. The remora is highly useful to the shark, but the shark can survive without the remora.

@3k1yp2,

A better way to phrase the title of this thread:

What I used to believe was true v. what I currently believe is true. To use the word "true" is generally to imply belief. Also, if we were "wrong" before, we can be wrong again. Another way to phrase it: we may yet again change our mental-model of "that which is the case."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;114156 wrote:

A better way to phrase the title of this thread:

What I used to believe was true v. what I currently believe is true. To use the word "true" is generally to imply belief. Also, if we were "wrong" before, we can be wrong again. Another way to phrase it: we may yet again change our mental-model of "that which is the case."

But some things I believe to be true, turn out not to be true. And some things that are true, I do not believe to be true. So how could that be a better title? If "mental model" just means "believe" (only fancier) then you are again wrong for the reasons just given.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;114185 wrote:

But some things I believe to be true, turn out not to be true.

This is just to say that you have changed your mental-model of reality. Your beliefs have changed. You call your current beliefs "true" but these current beliefs are also subject to revision. So "true" just becomes an adjective for one's current beliefs.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;114717 wrote:

This is just to say that you have changed your mental-model of reality. Your beliefs have changed. You call your current beliefs "true" but these current beliefs are also subject to revision. So "true" just becomes an adjective for one's current beliefs.

If that is so, I have the following questions:

1. What does it mean when we say "We may never know the truth about X"? (X could be, for example, an event in the distant past, or a state of affairs in a remote part of the universe.)

2. If two people are arguing about some abstruse scientific theory which we do not understand, and one of them claims the theory is correct while the other claims it is not, why are we inclined to say that one and only one of them is speaking the truth, though we do not know which?

My point is that our notion of truth is not always tied to our (or anyone's) specific beliefs. We can meaningfully assert that we do not know the truth about something, or that no-one knows it, or even that no-one will ever know it.

@ACB,

ACB;114732 wrote:

If that is so, I have the following questions:

1. What does it mean when we say "We may never know the truth about X"? (X could be, for example, an event in the distant past, or a state of affairs in a remote part of the universe.)

2. If two people are arguing about some abstruse scientific theory which we do not understand, and one of them claims the theory is correct while the other claims it is not, why are we inclined to say that one and only one of them is speaking the truth, though we do not know which?

My point is that our notion of truth is not always tied to our (or anyone's) specific beliefs. We can meaningfully assert that we do not know the truth about something, or that no-one knows it, or even that no-one will ever know it.

Yes, your mentions of the use of the word are valid. To never know the truth about x would be similar to knowing that beliefs about x may always be subject to change, or that such beliefs are not of much value.

Truth as correspondence is good for physical science and history. As soon as we get to ethics and metaphors, it's a new game. The correspondence theory of truth does not itself correspond with reality. Its simply a useful social practice involving words.

If we assert that we do not know the truth, this itself is also just a belief that may also change. It may a valuable belief. To say that something is unknowable is to pretend to know something significant about it: that it is unknowable.

In answer to your question 2: I think that most folks take the correspondence theory of truth for granted. I do not, while admitting its usefulness. These three theories seem to be near the heart of the matter.

Correspondence theory of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coherence theory of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deflationary theory of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy Forum

true v. believed to be true

Quick Links

My Account

able2know