Nature of Truth

DiscussãoPhilosophy and Theory

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Nature of Truth

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

1picklesan
Nov 6, 2010, 7:52 pm

Is truth objective, subjective, or a synthesis of both?

2constancelee
Nov 6, 2010, 9:03 pm

Who is the truth coming from? A liar?

3OccamsHammer
Editado: Nov 7, 2010, 12:33 am

For some reason I am reminded of this bit of dialogue from Star Trek:DS9.

Bashir: Of all the stories you told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't?

Garak: My dear Doctor, they're all true...

Bashir: Even the lies?

Garak: Especially the lies.

4JGL53
Nov 8, 2010, 5:50 pm

Truth = statement of truth = how a person understands the nature of whatever, and sometime we can get a strong consensus, maybe even a 100 per cent consensus. Nevertheless the "truth" is subjective. Always.

It has to do with inductive logic not producing perfect conclusions based on the problem of time. David Hume and all that.

Case closed.

Next question.

5semckibbin
Nov 9, 2010, 3:08 am

JGL53, maybe you could expand a little on your Humean explanation.

In any event, I find Davidson's view about knowledge and objective truth convincing:

All propositional thought, whether positive or skeptical, whether of the inner or of the outer, requires the possession of the concept of objective truth, and this concept is accessible only to those creatures in communication with others. Third person knowledge---knowledge of other minds---is thus essential to all other knowledge. But third person knowledge is impossible without the knowledge of a shared world of objects in a shared time and space. --- Introduction to Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective.

So we have a triangle: The world, myself and a community of language users. And what we talk about in our norm-governed communications we get mainly right.

For until the triangle is completed connecting two creatures, and each creature with common features of the world, there can be no answer to the question whether a creature, in discriminating between stimuli, is discriminating between stimuli at the sensory surfaces or somewhere further out, or further in. Without this sharing of reactions to common stimuli, thought and speech would have no particular content---that is, no content at all....

It should now be clear what ensures that our view of the world is, in its plainest features, largely correct. The reason is the stimuli that cause our most basic verbal responses also determine what those verbal responses mean, and the content of the beliefs that accompany them. The nature of interpretation guarantees both that a large number of our simplest perceptual beliefs are true, and the nature of those beliefs is known to others....Any particular belief may be false; but enough in our framework and fabric of our beliefs must be true to give content to the rest.
--- Three Varieties of Knowledge

6rrp
Nov 9, 2010, 7:30 pm

I was just wondering whether JGL53 thought that the statement

Nevertheless the "truth" is subjective. Always.

was a subjective truth or not.

7jahn
Nov 11, 2010, 1:51 pm

It’s a word, a tool employed in conveying information. So what particular game is it useful in? When has the term “useful information” become too limited a truth? I suggest that regarding “facts” only where the truth is a demand on compliance. Even if a fact is never replaced by a more useful fact, the usefulness of it remains as applicable as facts replaced by better information. That this or that god is the only true god, is a truth not replaceable by any term representing usefulness, that is true I admit, for as long as you stick to the same authority, making the same demands. Truth is a demand on truth where a demand is necessary in lack of the demonstrability of its truthfulness.

Besides we already are pretty mixed up with its daily use: sometimes in demand on truthfulness we mean genuineness, as in correspondence with definitions given, and sometimes we mean honesty as in spontaneity, which means the opposite: a lack of correspondence or compliance. So that we may demand spontaneity without observing that observing a demand on spontaneity disallows its appearance. And where is spontaneity to be found lacking other than in a lack of correspondence? – The theatre is of itself true; whoever finds it false, must find it false in not corresponding with falsity – with as reality observed theatre. I suggest we’d be better served with other words.

8semckibbin
Editado: Nov 11, 2010, 4:26 pm

Truth is a demand on truth where a demand is necessary in lack of the demonstrability of its truthfulness.

Im confused.

Are you saying there are (at least) two kinds of truths? That is, the truths you can demonstrate (perhaps by logic or by correspondence with the world) and those you cant demonstrate but they are still considered truths because they meet the demand on truth?

And if I interpreted you correctly (probably a slim chance), what is "the demand on truth"?

9jahn
Nov 12, 2010, 4:29 am

I am saying that there are several functions the word truth can have, within several strategies to influence ones environment, and that making clear the difference between these strategies we may make our ideas more clear.

The claim: “There is a Dollar in this box” could be shown to be true as useable information by taking off the lid and finding a Dollar. But it doesn’t become true in the sense of being information usable in a process before the Dollar is found, until that moment it is a mere claim. Truth as authority’s demand does not function this way and could be forced to reveal its nature by reducing truth as a result of examination to mere functionality within a process. Two plus two is four is a description that works, two plus two is three is one that does not, and claiming the latter’s lack of functionality satisfactorily fills the demand that could be laid on truth/untruth in this sort of context

For most people the word truth is synonymous with what they see as demanding acceptance in obedience to their authorities. This has the regrettable consequence that they in this way deny responsibility for their actions: they see things as already understood that have not been examined for functionality, and so merge their identity with their leaders. – A serious problem, which to some degree could be mitigated by splitting the definition of truth between authority’s demand and useable information. Let they who for dominance and subjugation really need the word have their “truth,” and let all others put it into other words what they would have used the word for.

10semckibbin
Nov 12, 2010, 8:33 pm

Okay, got it.

We have truths the world verifies like the dollar is in the box or the cat is on the mat.

We have truths that function like mathematical axioms.

And we have truths that authority (I assume like in some totalitarian country or fundamentalist religion or parent) imposes by fiat.

I dont agree with the last one, but am uninterested in arguing about it.

11jahn
Editado: Nov 20, 2010, 1:24 pm

And we have truths that authority (I assume like in some totalitarian country or fundamentalist religion or parent) imposes by fiat.

No you haven’t got it, because coercion can not be registered without own opposition to it. My use of the words authority and obedience is not to be read as describing oppression, but as accepted authority. A claim seen as proven through it’s origin with some authority contrast satisfyingly with one seen as proven by observable functionality within some process, regardless who or what the authority is.

As an apropos: regarding your use of the word “fundamentalism” I have elsewhere here defined it as greater obedience to authority than that of he who wants to separate his obedience from that of the fundamentalist’s. An unquantifiable quantity is rather worthless as contrast with what’s left after its subtraction from the whole, although fundamentalism’s accurate positioning beyond ones own obedience might seem easy, and it acceptance by others as placed just there, much to be wished for. I’m not denying that obedience has personal limits – my contention is that the willing subjugation of oneself to authority is fundamentally the same no matter what its size.


12semckibbin
Nov 23, 2010, 3:17 am

A claim seen as proven through it’s origin with some authority contrast satisfyingly with one seen as proven by observable functionality within some process, regardless who or what the authority is.

Tell me more.

Why is the contrast important? Do you think it makes one "proven" claim better than the other "proven" claim? Or are the two "proven" claims on a par with each other, that is, one good for one purpose and the other claim just as good for a different purpose?

13AtticWindow
Dez 22, 2010, 11:44 am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

14AtticWindow
Dez 22, 2010, 11:45 am

"Two plus two is four is a description that works, two plus two is three is one that does not, and claiming the latter’s lack of functionality satisfactorily fills the demand that could be laid on truth/untruth in this sort of context"

- What if a set of humans develops with a consistent cognitive defect such that every time one of them puts a 1 and a 2 together they mistake the 1 for a 2? In such a case it looks like "two plus two is three" would work (be functional) because it would compensate for the defect since they'd mistake the equation 1 plus 2 for 2 plus 2. In this case, by your view, both 2 plus 2 equals 4 and 2 plus 2 equals 3 would be simultaneously true with a normal set of humans and the cognitively defective set, respectively. This looks like a contradiction, so are you maintaining that contradictions are unproblematic? That is, that two contradictory claims and both be true?

15bertilak
Dez 22, 2010, 1:33 pm

>14 AtticWindow:: AtticWindow

If there were 2 such groups of humans, each group would have 'truth for them'. Each group would be confident that the other group was wrong. If intelligent aliens who thought 2+2 = 5 landed, they would think both groups were wrong.

Possible analogies: autistic and non-autistic people each have different 'truths': neither can understand or convince the other group to change their opinions. Likewise schizophrenics and non-schizophrenics, theists and atheists, etc.

The truth claims of these incompatible groups seem to be involuntary and thus unreachable by arguments.

16AtticWindow
Dez 22, 2010, 2:16 pm

Hm, so in that case truth and falsity can coexist with the exact same "fact" as their referent, provided that opposite truth values are functional for different groups. But then what are we talking about right now? We seem to be discussing these 'truths' from some overhead perspective as though we have an absolute universal lens through which to analyze them. But if this is really right, then our own 'truths' should only be 'truths for us'...are we just babbling vacuous nonsense? Or maybe there is some domain of universal functionality wherein the concepts we're using are contained. It looks difficult to me to maintain that truth is a mere matter of function, since that is itself a truth claim and therefore must also be a mere matter of function in order to be coherent. As such, it looks like a group for which absolute truth is more functional (i.e. a conception where truth is what corresponds with reality), would have to be just as correct as ourselves. But, if their claims are absolutely true, then how can they also be a mere matter of function? That is, only be 'true for them'. Hopefully that wasn't too convoluted...

17bertilak
Dez 22, 2010, 2:51 pm

> 16: AtticWindow

Yes, what we call truths (assuming we are in the same cognitive group!) are 'truths for us'. Because we cannot use reason to prove we do not have some shared cognitive impairment -- if we had such an impairment, by definition, our reasoning would also be impaired.

Also, it seems to me, we cannot appeal to Revelation from gods or other putative superior beings because there are competing, incompatible candidate revelations and we cannot be sure we are picking the correct one(s).

This is why I think 'truth' is pretty much worthless as a concept.

What is a good word meaning 'the best known propositions regarding our shared experiences that have sustained and survived prolonged public, candid, uncensored criticism'? That is the best we can hope for, it seems to me. Even such propositions are tentative, since they are subject to subsequent refutation or improvement by new evidence or future thinkers who spot flaws we missed.

Incidentally, to backtrack a moment, there is the question of standpoint regarding a judgment of cognitive impairment. I think I belong to the class of non-schizophrenic humans. We judge schizophrenics to be impaired because 'they are not like us' and we are in the majority.

The possibility that you or I might be impaired in some way, too, proceeds by analogy: there might be beings who are to us as we are to schizophrenics. Unknowable to us, but imaginable.

18pmackey
Dez 23, 2010, 7:37 pm

Truth is objective, however, because we are finite creatures our view of truth is subjective. Perspective defines what we "see" as truth which means that many things claimed as true are not necessarily so.

On a related but separate note, I highly recommend Why Truth Matters by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. It's a fascinating read.

19AtticWindow
Dez 23, 2010, 8:00 pm

pmackey, I'll certainly be taking a look at that. However, I have one question for you, namely if our view of truth is subjective then how can you make the claim that "truth is objective" with such apparent confidence? Presumably our views on the nature of truth must also be subjective and therefore unable to produce a definitive concrete conception of what the nature of truth consists of. As such, the assertion that "truth is objective" seems rash to me if coupled with your view of truth as molded by perspective.

20pmackey
Dez 23, 2010, 8:53 pm

AtticWindow, very good question and I appreciate your comment.

Admittedly I cannot state categorically that objective truth exists. It's my theory. Basically -- very basically -- in examining the big questions of philosophy (i.e., Does God exist? What is the nature of truth?), the rational person gathers and synthesizes all the information available, merges that with experience, then forms the most logical theory. The conclusions of different, rational people can be, well, different.

I use the term "rational person" purposely, but there are certainly hordes of people who reach different conclusions without using reason. (They scare me...)

There's more I'd like to say but I don't think I'd do justice to it -- I really need a cup of tea. How I formed my theory is related to my understanding of the principle of sufficient reason: that humans are endowed with sufficient reason to make sense of the world. That's my starting point, but I won't go further without tea.

21semckibbin
Dez 24, 2010, 1:50 pm

pmackey,

I hope your tea was delicious.

How does one become endowed with "sufficient reason"? Is it a genetic thing caused by billions of years of evolution; or a learning language as part of a community thing; or a magical thing that cant be explained; or some other combination of things?

22pmackey
Dez 25, 2010, 12:21 pm

semckibbin, Regarding sufficient reason, this is the challenge of language: to explain adequately what each term means so that all may have a common understanding -- but not necessarily agreement. I'll give it a try.

When I use the term sufficient reason, I mean that humans have the ability to reason adequately to make sense of the world. Not that we understand everything, but that we can use reason in science, philosophy, etc. to make sense of what we see, hear, observe, experience....

I'm less interested in where or how humans get reason, but more that we possess the ability. My theory or if you prefer, opinion, is this: Generally, I'd say sufficient reason is a combination of evolution, community and, yes, God.

Of course the last bit is controversial, but the subject of deism, theism, agnosticism and atheism is worthy of its own thread. Let me just emphasize, please, that I strive to keep an open mind.

23AtticWindow
Dez 25, 2010, 11:17 pm

pmackey, I'm not sure what semckibbin meant by his question, but I took it as an implication of a deeper problem than you answered. Namely, what justifies your assumption of sufficient reason? Is it by virtue of this combination of factors that you infer that humans have sufficient reason? Sufficient reason seems like a very controversial notion to simply assume without any explicit grounds for doing so. At a glance, to me, what might be called 'the principle of insufficient reason' seems more plausible :P

24quicksiva
Dez 26, 2010, 4:15 pm

# 22
"My theory or if you prefer, opinion, is this: Generally, I'd say sufficient reason is a combination of evolution, community and, yes, God."

=======

Ammon to that!

25pmackey
Editado: Dez 27, 2010, 8:22 am

AtticWindow (#23)
Part of the problem may be that the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" has an entirely different meaning in philosophy from how I intend the term. So, I apologize for any confusion. I use the phrase here to say humans are endowed with the ability to use reason to make sense of the world. That probably is too simplistic but it does summarize my thinking.

It’s my theory that sufficient reason is “true” because it works in the everyday world. Our human ability to reason doesn’t mean we know everything – there are always more questions. But sufficient reason enables humans to examine enough information and experience to make sense of the world.

Wherever we get our reason from (and I do think it’s a combination of many things), humans have the ability to process information and formulate logical conclusions. The Cynics said we can’t really know anything. Maybe that is so on a certain level, but it is wrong when it comes to most things in real life. Where would scientists be without the ability to make sense of the data, formulate a hypothesis, experiment and interpret the results? Where would juries be without the ability to examine evidence, synthesize arguments, and form judgments?

26AtticWindow
Dez 27, 2010, 7:43 pm

Ah, hm, yea it looks like I was taking the term differently. I thought you meant that humans have the capacity to understand the universe in its entirety by virtue of reason, i.e. sufficient reason to understand everything. I certainly don't doubt that humans can "make sense of the world", at least not seriously. I only doubt that we're capable of understanding it completely with our very limited cognitive apparatus.

27pmackey
Dez 28, 2010, 7:15 pm

Yea, sorry for the mix-up. I see knowledge as ever expanding. Despite all we've discovered and learned, we're only scraping the surface of the universe. While any discovery can cause confusion because we don't fully understand it at the time, our stock of truth continues to expand over time. We continue building on the foundation laid out by those who've gone before.

Bringing this back to the nature of truth, I think that Truth is an ideal that draws us on; we are curious creatures that keep digging, poking and wondering. Because I see truth as an ideal, I do think it's objective -- not as a literal object in space or heaven, but an objective ideal.

My disclaimer, though, is that my philosophical approach to Truth as an ideal is metaphysical, whereas I see truth epistemologically.