defining truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:25 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;139320 wrote:
There are two ways a proposition can be true, by corresponding with the current state of affairs or by virtue of the definitions of the words.

1. The cat is on the mat.

2. All bachelors are single men.

Take a look at (1). It may be true or false, depending on whether or not the cat is actually on the mat. To know whether or not (1) is true, we have to consult reality. Now look at (2). There's no need to consult reality. We know it's true because that's what the definition of a bachelor is.

Both (1) and (2) are true so truth can't simply be a correspondence with the current state of affairs because the truth of (2) doesn't depend on the current state of affairs. If we can figure out what they have in common then we'll understand what truth is. It seems to me that truth is a certain kind of relationship.


Yes, Aristotle was talking about substantive truth, truth about the world. Analytic truth (all bachelors are unmarried men) is truth that depends only on how we elect to relate terms ti each other; "Truth in virtue of the terms involved". It is a good question why we say that both are true.
 
sword
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:42 am
@Fido,
Fido;139201 wrote:
Really??? Because I think truth is one of those things we impose upon reality which distorts it and keeps us from seeing it as it is...Kind of like the way the Church once held onto the Ptolemaic universe against the Copernican, and since it owned truth, it could not see truth..


That was a human mistake made by men, not by the truth revealed in the Holy Scripture. In fact, the greatest scientists in history (Newton, Pascal, Mendel, etc.) were inspired by their faith in a Creator whom they recognized because of the complex order of nature. The opposite of Truth, that is, pagan pseudoscience, only causes misery such as we can see in India or Africa.
 
sammy phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:45 am
@Holiday20310401,
i feel like more then just having a great mind like our pioneers of thought is the width of what you know and how you let it settle. in other words the point in time you were alive on earth was the limit of what was available to learn. if aristotle had the knowledge base that we do now, there is no way of saying what he or any other master of thought might accomplish. i believe this holds true for anyone. let's say every action and outcome possible is stored in a kind of spacial memory, and assuming after you die you go to a new body with a new way of learning you become faced with the possible outcomes of your actions but on every level to try and better explain the reaction. if you openly admit a bad idea when you see the outcome, the issue is resolved or balanced since the action never occured just the thought.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139283 wrote:
Yes, that's the trouble with Aristotle. He is so simple-minded. I think, though, I'll stick with Aristotle until I come across something better.


I am certain you can tell the difference between an example of something, and a definition of that something...It is the difference between the specific and the universal, and since so much that Aristotle said was wrong, clearly he did not know better than the rest of us what was right...He gave us some valuable insights, but injured the world by being so good that no one though he might be wrong.
 
sammy phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:48 am
@Holiday20310401,
i think about this alot and it's hard cause i really feel for them. but the truth is if we were never wrong the right would never be seen, hence making everything right in its own respect.

---------- Post added 03-13-2010 at 09:50 AM ----------

i prefer to think of things as similair or unique
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:55 am
@sword,
sword;139324 wrote:
That was a human mistake made by men, not by the truth revealed in the Holy Scripture. In fact, the greatest scientists in history (Newton, Pascal, Mendel, etc.) were inspired by their faith in a Creator whom they recognized because of the complex order of nature. The opposite of Truth, that is, pagan pseudoscience, only causes misery such as we can see in India or Africa.

We see much of the misery in india and Africa because we have been going there and spreading it for many, many years under shield of our crosses...

The view you hold of truth entitles you spread your faith, your economy, your medicine and your tools of war; and all of it throws people in balance with each other and with nature into a great confusion...Your religion is not an improvement upon paganism, but is everything paganism is and worse...Forget scripture...Where is that one willing to take up the cross of Jesus and follow him???No wonder the Muslims look at us so many Satans...We put every little fetish between ourselves and our God, and you do as well, making a fetish of your book and your formal relationship with God when that was the very thing rejected by Jesus...If you live it you will not need to preach it, and to preach it without living it will deserve you every contumely...
 
sammy phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:59 am
@Holiday20310401,
good points fido, i remember reading that jesus constantly telling people to rise from their knee's. he didnt want praise he wanted self worthe the way he felt it but in them(us), wich is dependant on our will to want to do so.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:22 am
@sammy phil,
sammy;139341 wrote:
good points fido, i remember reading that jesus constantly telling people to rise from their knee's. he didnt want praise he wanted self worthe the way he felt it but in them(us), wich is dependant on our will to want to do so.

Just as the majority of the ten commandment deal with psychological sin, which is the proper place to deal with them, before they leave our thoughts and become reality, Jesus did as much and more, teaching a psychological relationship with God, and rejecting the formality of religious law...In part, this is what got him killed, and the lesson remains unlearned, and many still want to go through the motions of their religion with out doing the deeds of it, saying faith is enough, when for those who do, faith is certain, and yet, never enough...

As we do, so we believe...If you wish to know how a man feels, do as he does, and you will feel then as he felt then... So it is with faith, that we do not have to cross the street to be Christians, but where ever we go to do as Christ would do, care, love, help, forgive and heal... And I am not saying it because it is easy...Far from it...It is simply the only way...

Where is the rich Christian...Where is the Christian seeing the great need before him does not wonder why God has so forsaken us, and feel like a failure, insignificant, and useless. Christian means slave of Christ...Where is the Christian who is not a slave to his faith, living the life of a slave among slaves??? Whether of Christ or of reality we are doomed to certain failure on this earth, and given only hope in the next life..
 
north
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:37 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;139186 wrote:
Does truth only take place in what is the case, or does it also take place in what can be the case? Does understanding what can be the case lead to a refined definition of truth?

If knowledge doesn't imply truth then where is truth? Or does it just not exist?

Is truth a noun or a verb? Can it be made into both? If so, which one is it that philosophers want?


truth , things are both simple and complex

always
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 04:51 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;139186 wrote:
Does truth only take place in what is the case, or does it also take place in what can be the case? Does understanding what can be the case lead to a refined definition of truth?

If knowledge doesn't imply truth then where is truth? Or does it just not exist?

Is truth a noun or a verb? Can it be made into both? If so, which one is it that philosophers want?


Truth is that which can be or has been shown to be the case.
When we say that we know p, we mean that we acknowledge the truth or falsity of p.

To know that p is true is to show that p is true.

Logical truth is shown to be the case in virtue of logical proof.
Empirical truth is shown to be the case in virtue of scientific methods.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 05:13 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;139524 wrote:
Truth is that which can be or has been shown to be the case.
When we say that we know p, we mean that we acknowledge the truth or falsity of p.

To know that p is true is to show that p is true.

Logical truth is shown to be the case in virtue of logical proof.
Empirical truth is shown to be the case in virtue of scientific methods.


A statement may be true, but cannot be shown to be the case. For example, we know that the number of stars in the universe is either odd or even, but no one can show which it is. It may be true that there are ETs, but no one (so far) has shown that to be the case.

I know that table salt is NaCl, but I cannot show it is true. I suppose you are in the same boat.

When I believe that p, I acknowledge the truth of p, but it need not be true that I know that p.
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139525 wrote:
A statement may be true, but cannot be shown to be the case. For example, we know that the number of stars in the universe is either odd or even, but no one can show which it is. It may be true that there are ETs, but no one (so far) has shown that to be the case.

I know that table salt is NaCl, but I cannot show it is true. I suppose you are in the same boat.

When I believe that p, I acknowledge the truth of p, but it need not be true that I know that p.


Statements that may be true and cannot be shown to be the case, are beliefs not knowledge.

You do not know that the number of stars is even or its odd.
Rather you believe that the number of stars is finite and all finite numbers are even or odd. If the number of stars is not finite then it is not even or odd.

"When I believe that p, I acknowledge the truth of p, but it need not be true that I know that p."

I don't agree. When you believe that p is true, you assume that p is true, you do not acknowledge that p is true at all.

If you acknowledge that p is true, then it must be the case that you know that p is true.

If I believe that p is the case, then It is not the case that I know (or acknowledge) that p is false.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:58 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;139544 wrote:
Statements that may be true and cannot be shown to be the case, are beliefs not knowledge.

You do not know that the number of stars is even or its odd.
Rather you believe that the number of stars is finite and all finite numbers are even or odd. If the number of stars is not finite then it is not even or odd.

"When I believe that p, I acknowledge the truth of p, but it need not be true that I know that p."

I don't agree. When you believe that p is true, you assume that p is true, you do not acknowledge that p is true at all.

If you acknowledge that p is true, then it must be the case that you know that p is true.

If I believe that p is the case, then It is not the case that I know (or acknowledge) that p is false.


I agree that statements that are true, but are not justified, are beliefs and not knowledge. But it was you who said that truth was what can be shown to be the case. And that is clearly false. Since a belief can be true, and still not be shown to be the case.

What I know is that if the number of stars is finite, then that number is either even or odd. But I cannot know whether it is even or odd. Therefore something can be true without my being able to show that it is the case. QED. But, for another example, it might be true that at the bottom of the deepest portion of the sea, there lies a diamond. But even it it is true, I cannot show it is the case.

I can acknowledge that p is true simply by believing p. So I can acknowledge that p is true, and not know that p is true. Why is that not acknowledging that p is true. Someone says, "Spike is the murderer". I say, "Yes, I believe that Spike is the murderer". Haven't I acknowledged that it is true that Spike is the murderer? I suppose I don't know what you might mean by "acknowledge". Certainly, when I believe that p is true, p need not be true, but that doesn't mean that I did not acknowledge that p was true.

to recognize the rights, authority, or status of
2 : to disclose knowledge of or agreement with
3 a : to express gratitude or obligation for <acknowledge a gift> b : to take notice of <failed to acknowledge my greeting> c : to make known the receipt of <acknowledge a letter>
4 : to recognize as genuine or valid <acknowledge a debt>
synonyms acknowledge, admit, own, avow, confess mean to disclose against one's will or inclination. acknowledge implies the disclosing of something that has been or might be concealed <acknowledged an earlier peccadillo>. admit implies reluctance to disclose, grant, or concede and refers usually to facts rather than their implications <admitted the project was over budget>. own implies acknowledging something in close relation to oneself <must own I know little about computers>. avow implies boldly declaring, often in the face of hostility, what one might be expected to be silent about <avowed that he was a revolutionary>. confess may apply to an admission of a weakness, failure, omission, or guilt <confessed a weakness for sweets>.

Merriam-Webster
 
north
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 09:10 pm
@kennethamy,
whats in front of you
 
Derek M
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 04:47 pm
@Holiday20310401,
A proposition is true insofar as it corresponds to how things are. That seems a solid enough explanation of truth. As far as the relation between knowledge and truth, I would say a belief has to be true for it to constitute knowledge. That's not to say one has to be certain a belief is true to rightfully consider it knowledge, but I wouldn't consider someone else's belief "knowledge" if I didn't think it was true. Consider the following:

Tim believes there's Coke in the fridge, because he put Coke in the fridge earlier. I removed the Coke from the fridge without Tim knowing. Tim appears justified in believing there's Coke in the fridge, but I would not say he knows there's Coke in the fridge, because it's not true that there's Coke in the fridge.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:29 pm
@Derek M,
Derek M;141343 wrote:
A proposition is true insofar as it corresponds to how things are. That seems a solid enough explanation of truth. As far as the relation between knowledge and truth, I would say a belief has to be true for it to constitute knowledge. That's not to say one has to be certain a belief is true to rightfully consider it knowledge, but I wouldn't consider someone else's belief "knowledge" if I didn't think it was true. Consider the following:

Tim believes there's Coke in the fridge, because he put Coke in the fridge earlier. I removed the Coke from the fridge without Tim knowing. Tim appears justified in believing there's Coke in the fridge, but I would not say he knows there's Coke in the fridge, because it's not true that there's Coke in the fridge.


Certainly only true beliefs are knowledge, but that does not mean that knowledge is only true belief. A lucky guess is true belief, but it is not knowledge. I agree with you that a person does not have to be infallible so that it is impossible for him to be mistaken for him to know. A necessary condition of knowledge is only not being mistaken. It is not a necessary condition of knowledge that it be impossible to be mistaken.
 
Derek M
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:32 pm
@Holiday20310401,
kennethamy wrote:
Certainly only true beliefs are knowledge, but that does not mean that knowledge is only true belief. A lucky guess is true belief, but it is not knowledge.


Which is why we would say knowledge consists in justified true belief.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:34 pm
@Derek M,
Derek M;141373 wrote:
Which is why we would say knowledge consists in justified true belief.


Yes, those are certainly necessary conditions of knowledge. But they need not be sufficient conditions of knowledge.
 
Derek M
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:39 pm
@Holiday20310401,
kennethamy wrote:
Yes, those are certainly necessary conditions of knowledge. But they need not be sufficient conditions of knowledge.


True. The "Gettier problem", at least, seems to demand we tack on another condition.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:40 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;139186 wrote:
Does truth only take place in what is the case, or does it also take place in what can be the case? Does understanding what can be the case lead to a refined definition of truth?

If knowledge doesn't imply truth then where is truth? Or does it just not exist?

Is truth a noun or a verb? Can it be made into both? If so, which one is it that philosophers want?


:bigsmile:Thruth and Knowledge are like brothers robbing the gold of the Faraoh. Thruth is a Believe+ Knowledge just facts. Thot held the balance of good & bad deeds.

My English Grammar fails: BOOX !
:letme-at-em: OK
Noun - Thrut
more or less `soul`

Anubis ass. by Thot Yudge of Gods:whistling:

 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/25/2020 at 02:01:51