[Winstonm]

Btw, this from Wikipedia kind of puts this thread into perspective:

Quote

The term [truth] has no single definition yet about which over fifty percent of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated.

No doubt we will be able to finally settle this issue in the watercooler. Truth is, you either shouldn't have bid 6 spades or you should have played it better.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on May 14 2010, 10:20 PM, said:

Again, I think you conflate "truth" with "knowledge."

i believe this is the cause of all the misunderstandings up to now... when defining the terms is as exhausting a process as this thread seems to have made it, it's easy to see why others lose interest... when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'... winston seems to prefer defining the term to mean 'that which is thought to conform to fact or actuality'

he also seems fond of the word 'empirical' and uses it when speaking of truth, as if truth itself must of necessity be determined empirically... this is not the case... it's true (a small joke) that much of our knowledge is gained empirically, and it's true (more or less and as kant has said) that our knowledge comes from our experience, but from those it does not follow that all knowledge comes from experience... however, i do not see (unless winston's definition is used) how those things can apply to truth... so when he speaks of a priori or a posteriori "truth" he actually means knowledge (in the sense that his arguments are better suited for a discussion of the one term rather than the other)...

he makes this, to me, incredible statement: "Well, I can certainly understand and agree that it can "seem to be the case" that truth is absolute - but it simply cannot be" and he appears unable to grasp the contradiction in what he has just said... is that quote itself absolutely true? how about the following statement, is it absolutely true: something exists... for that statement not to be absolutely true, one would have to argue that something exists in perception only and not in actuality... this is nonsensical

winston said:

Once we know the facts about the deck and what card was removed, we don't need the Law of Excluded Middle to tell us that it either was or was not the spade 7. We "know" it was the 8 of hearts.

so you have empirically proven the truth of what lobo said? no winston, what you've done is prove *to your satisfaction* the truth of what he said - you did not prove it true empirically... it was true or false beforehand... your knowledge of its truth might have been gained experientially, not the truth itself

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on May 15 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

If I pull a card from a deck, it is either true that the card I pulled was the 7 of spades, or it is true that it was not the 7 of spades, regardless of whether I turn it face up or burn it before anyone sees it. If I burn it without looking, the fact that neither of us can say for certainly which case was true doesn't render both of them untrue.

For what its worth, here's another way to skin the cat...

http://www.pedrotytgat.be/wiskunde/statist...ch_to_stats.pdf

[Winstonm]

Quote

i believe this is the cause of all the misunderstandings up to now... when defining the terms is as exhausting a process as this thread seems to have made it, it's easy to see why others lose interest... when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'... winston seems to prefer defining the term to mean 'that which is thought to conform to fact or actuality'

I understand you are well-studied in this area - but I truly wonder sometimes about your basic comprehension skills - seriously. I very plainly showed by using the example of the wingless flying bird that a logical proof, i.e., truth (a concept) has nothing to do with fact or actuality.

I also find it quite odd that someone with training in logic would use an appeal to belief and and appeal to common practice to justify your definition of truth.
"when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'"

See, when I gave the word a definition I also gave a reasoning for that definition - that truth cannot resolve to an object in the universe therefore it is a concept.

Your reasoning for your definition seems to be of the, Yeah, well everyone knows the Earth is the center of the universe -type.

I guess we can leave it to the interlocutor to determine which definition is better reasoned.

Quote

he also seems fond of the word 'empirical' and uses it when speaking of truth, as if truth itself must of necessity be determined empirically...

Totally backwards from what I said if you bothered to read what I posted earlier to Lobowolf about how I previously had misapplied terms. One more time with current definitions to make certain you know what I mean and I know what you mean. Truth=proved by logic. Fact=empirical evidence.

Or to state it axiomatically, truth exists as a physical object in the universe or truth does not exist as a physical object in the universe.

And that is a true statement.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 15 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

Quote

i believe this is the cause of all the misunderstandings up to now... when defining the terms is as exhausting a process as this thread seems to have made it, it's easy to see why others lose interest... when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'... winston seems to prefer defining the term to mean 'that which is thought to conform to fact or actuality'

I understand you are well-studied in this area - but I truly wonder sometimes about your basic comprehension skills - seriously. I very plainly showed by using the example of the wingless flying bird that a logical proof, i.e., truth (a concept) has nothing to do with fact or actuality.

Quote

he also seems fond of the word 'empirical' and uses it when speaking of truth, as if truth itself must of necessity be determined empirically...

Totally backwards from what I said if you bothered to read what I posted earlier to Lobowolf. One more time to make certain you know what I mean and I know what you mean. Truth=logical proof. Fact=empirical evidence.

winston, i know what you wrote and (your opinion of my comprehension skills notwithstanding) i understood it... you here simply say again that which you've said all along... a truth is not defined as, nor is it of necessity shown by, a logical fact... this is where you keep missing the mark... this can be seen in the discussion above where you made the statement that absolute, or universal, truth does not exist... that is simply not the case, the very stating of the assertion shows it to be in error

if it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, and if truth is defined as logical proof, then logically prove it...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on May 15 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on May 15 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

If I pull a card from a deck, it is either true that the card I pulled was the 7 of spades, or it is true that it was not the 7 of spades, regardless of whether I turn it face up or burn it before anyone sees it.  If I burn it without looking, the fact that neither of us can say for certainly which case was true doesn't render both of them untrue.

For what its worth, here's another way to skin the cat...

http://www.pedrotytgat.be/wiskunde/statist...ch_to_stats.pdf

Please do not confuse us with intelligent observation. We are quite content to slop around in our respective ignorance.

[Winstonm]

Quote

if it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist

IMO you are resorting to a false (i.e. unproven) claim by restating the claim of "absolute" truth. Regardless, it is appreciated that you show a specific example of how you came to your conclusions about what I wrote - certainly makes it easier to discuss.

Quote

this can be seen in the discussion above where you made the statement that absolute, or universal, truth does not exist... that is simply not the case

O.K. Fair enough. Here is my deal. I will give my case why absolute truth cannot exist. After which, you must give your case as to why absollute truth does exist.

I'll start.

Any claim of absolute truth is a claim of truth that is “true for every possible circumstance". It certainly is possible that at some point in time language did not exist, that logic or the word “truth” did not exist, or that a mind did not exist. Prior to humans existing, it is a possible that no truths existed at all. We also have no idea whether any claim will remain true into the future - eternally - which is a necessity for "every possible circumstance".

So much for absolutes.

The phrase "absolute truth" is self-refuting because there is nothing which can be proven to have always been eternally true, and will continue to be eternally true.
Truth is a concept and thus dependent on cognition.

Or we could use your definition that truth is whatever the "group" or "common definition" says it is. Perhaps we could use this appeal to common practice to prove that future truth will be the same as today's truth but it may be difficult to round up a consensus of opinion from the population of the year 5049.

Let's take your statement: "it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist"

1. The phrase "it is an absolute truth" declares itself as an “absolute statement”.

2. But in order for that statement to have a meaning of absolute in any “absolute sense” in reality, it must be true for all possible circumstances.

3. As shown above, there are possible circumstances where truth could not have existed - before minds or humans were on this planet - or where the continuity cannot be determined - into the future. So truth cannot possibly be absolute.

Therefore your statement is false and does not denote a truth that is absolute.

Let's take the last part of the statement: absolute truth does not exist.

This is a proven as shown above that it is a possible circumstance that truth has not always existed and may not continue to exist unchanged into the future, both of which would be required for it to be absolute.

Therefore, the second part of the statement - absolute truth does not exist - does not denote an absolute statment. It is a propositional statement that is proven true.

So to put it all together and we show this about your entire statement:
"[if] it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist"

Part 1: it is an absolute truth - No. It is shown that absolute truth is impossible.
Part 2: absolute truth does not exist - Yes. It is a propositional statement that is proven true.

[mike777]

One viewpoint.

There is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of apprecitating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.
------------

"Certain revisions in response to the evidence are reasonable; others pathological."
Thomas Nagel

[mike777]

Without delving too deeply, belief can be said to have three aspects essential to it.

Any belief must have a propositional context; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justified or unjustified, rational or irrational.


----------------------


A propositional content is built up out of concepts. It specifies a truth condition-how the world would have to be if the belief is to be true.


-------------------------

So if we say that belief is true, then it looks as though the corresponding fact has to obtain for everyone, whether they are inclined to believe it or not- it does not vary from person to person or community to community. (universal fact).

It's not merely that it looks to be universal, it also looks to be completely "mind-independent"; it would have obtained even if human beings had never existed.

-------------

If a belief is to count as knowledge, it must not only be justified, it must also be true.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 15 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

One viewpoint.

Quote

There is a way things are that is independent of human opinion,

Certainly, as human opinion does not alter the physical world.

Quote

we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of apprecitating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective

Belief is a good word, a fine word, and there is nothing wrong with admitting belief. But why should "belief" be "binding"?

If the belief is binding, then it is not possible to alter one's belief because one is bound to that belief. In order to bind by belief, it is necessary to eliminate all new facts that are contrary to that belief and create scenarios that illustrate how the belief is no longer simply belief but an unchallengeable fact.

And, of course, if you are not capable of understanding the truth of binding belief then you are simply not capable of understanding how wrong you are.

This all has a distinctly familiiar flavor.....

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 15 2010, 03:17 PM, said:

mike777, on May 15 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

One viewpoint.

Quote

There is a way things are that is independent of human opinion,

Certainly, as human opinion does not alter the physical world.

Quote

we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of apprecitating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective

Belief is a good word, a fine word, and there is nothing wrong with admitting belief. But why should "belief" be "binding"?

If the belief is binding, then it is not possible to alter one's belief because one is bound to that belief. In order to bind by belief, it is necessary to eliminate all new facts that are contrary to that belief and create scenarios that illustrate how the belief is no longer simply belief but an unchallengeable fact.

And, of course, if you are not capable of understanding the truth of binding belief then you are simply not capable of understanding how wrong you are.

This all has a distinctly familiiar flavor.....

My entire post is about those who may fear knowledge.

no...reread what I said you misunderstand.

A belief is a particular kind of mental state. I define it, then you mangle it ...


If you fear knowledge, if you fear to be bound by a belief in knowledge, ok.

[Winstonm]

Quote

A propositional content is built up out of concepts. It specifies a truth condition-how the world would have to be if the belief is to be true.

Yes. Yes. No.

The Unforgiven Refutation:
Little Bill: But I believed I would build a house.
Will: Believin's got nothin' to do with it.

Belief is acceptance without proof. Logical proof resolves the dichotomy of true or false. If it is true, it does not have to be believed; if it is believed, then it cannot be true.

So sayeth the Law of Excluded Middle.

[Winstonm]

Quote

My entire      post is about those who may fear knowledge.

no...reread what I said you misunderstand.

A belief is a particular kind of mental state. I define it, then you mangle it ...


If you fear knowledge, if you fear to be bound by a belief in knowledge, ok  Any belief must have a propositional context; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justified or unjustified, rational or irrational.  (emphasis added)

That is just the point - belief is that which cannot be assessed as true or false. If it can be assessed as true or false it does not have to be believed. It is proven true or false.

Ontological arguments only attempt to show a justification for belief - reason cannot prove existence.

[mike777]

Your logic falls apart....to claim something is a true assertion is not to say it is proven or even ifyou believe that something is true or is fact that everyone else does.

You confuse a true assertion with the word proven.

You refuse to see that if something is true assertion or false assertion is in fact a belief.

I may believe in a factwhile others dont.

So if we say that the belief is true then it looks as thought the correspoinding fact has to obtain for everyone, whether they are inclined or not.



---------

Again I posit that a belief must be true assertion and justified..........these are not the same thing.....you seem to think they are.

to be put this another way an assertion may be assessed as true but not be justified or rational.


Example.....our early ancesters thought that they knew the earth was flat but they were wrong. Although their belief about the earth was justified it was not true.

If a belief is to count as knowledge, it must not only be justified, it must also be true.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 15 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

Quote

if it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist

IMO you are resorting to a false (i.e. unproven) claim by restating the claim of "absolute" truth. Regardless, it is appreciated that you show a specific example of how you came to your conclusions about what I wrote - certainly makes it easier to discuss.

Quote

this can be seen in the discussion above where you made the statement that absolute, or universal, truth does not exist... that is simply not the case

O.K. Fair enough. Here is my deal. I will give my case why absolute truth cannot exist. After which, you must give your case as to why absollute truth does exist.

I'll start.

Any claim of absolute truth is a claim of truth that is “true for every possible circumstance". It certainly is possible that at some point in time language did not exist, that logic or the word “truth” did not exist, or that a mind did not exist. Prior to humans existing, it is a possible that no truths existed at all. We also have no idea whether any claim will remain true into the future - eternally - which is a necessity for "every possible circumstance".

this entire paragraph is nothing more than a hodgepodge of assertions with no attempt at argument... for example, you say "Any claim of absolute truth is a claim of truth that is “true for every possible circumstance"."... you appear to be saying that absolute truth can exist, just not in every possible circumstance... is that your stance? if it is, it will require something more than your asserting of it

Quote

The phrase "absolute truth" is self-refuting because there is nothing which can be proven to have always been eternally true, and will continue to be eternally true.

do you claim that the above sentence is absolutely true?

Quote

Truth is a concept and thus dependent on cognition.

is that statement absolutely true?

Quote

Let's take your statement: "it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist"

1. The phrase "it is an absolute truth" declares itself as an “absolute statement”.

2. But in order for that statement to have a meaning of absolute in any “absolute sense” in reality, it must be true for all possible circumstances.

3. As shown above, there are possible circumstances where truth could not have existed  - before minds or humans were on this planet - or where the continuity cannot be determined - into the future. So truth cannot possibly be absolute.

as what was shown above? you have shown nothing, except perhaps in your own mind where words have meanings assigned by you... and my statement was taken out of context (again) - it was meant to show that *your* statement about absolute truth was stated by you as itself an absolute truth... is this statement absolutely true? something exists

Quote

Let's take the last part of the statement: absolute truth does not exist.

This is a proven as shown above that it is a possible circumstance that truth has not always existed and may not continue to exist unchanged into the future, both of which would be required for it to be absolute.

i honestly feel like i'm in some bizzaro world in which whatever winston asserts to be the case is in fact the case... how is anything "as shown above" in any way a proof of anything?

as i said in my earlier post, if (as you say) it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, and if truth is defined (again, as you say) as logical proof, then logically prove it

[mike777]

NOt sure about absolute truth but I dont think we should fear that we indeed can explain what we believe by appeal to our epistemic reasons alone.

I discussed "universal" facts above.


Again belief is a particular kind of mental state. One that can be anaylzed in terms of the three stated aspects.

A belief that is objectively reasonable and binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.

Do not be afraid to be bound by a belief in Knowledge.

[mike777]

Lobowolf, on May 8 2010, 12:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

The conceptual cannot prove existence - you cannot reason a cumquat salad onto my plate.

And I'm pretty sure nobody would try. But if all conscious being perished after it were placed on your plate, it will still be true that it's there.

The earth is flat a great example, btw. Before the proof arrived, it was absolutely true that the world was in fact non-flat. The fact that some people believe to be true some unproven things that are false does not imply that no unproven things are true.

I do strongly agree that it was justified or rational to believe in a flat earth.



"Truth can only be attributed to judgments, which are expressed as propositions that note the degree, or lack, of agreement between two or more ideas. Arguments are made up of propositions. Arguments are never "true" or "false." The propositions making up the argument may be "true" or "false," but not the argument itself. An argument is either"


http://en.wikipedia....iteria_of_truth

[PassedOut]

mike777, on May 15 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

I do strongly agree that it was justified or rational to believe in a flat earth.

And, in fact, the bible depicts god creating a flat earth, according to the common understanding of the time. When that later proved to be wrong, theologians had some explaining to do.

[blackshoe]

It was only after the Númenoreans violated the edict of the Valar and sailed West attempting to reach Valinor that Erú recast Arda into a globe (and incidentally removed Valinor from the reach of most mortals).

[Winstonm]

Mike,

That's why these sorts of discussions always collapse into arcane discussion about terms and their meanings.

I never used the term "true assertion". You use that term , but asserting true or false does not make a claim either true or false. An argument of assertion is simply a claim that something is as you say it is - without bothering to offer a proof. It is you who have inserted the word "assertion" into the discussion. You are building a straw man. True or false is resolved.

Quote

You  confuse a  true assertion with  the word proven.

No, I do not confuse "assertion" with proof. I equate proven with true (or false). By proven I mean a priori proof, as there is no way to prove a concept outside the realm of thought and reason. Outside of thought and reason is the physical universe, and that is the domain of fact, not truth.

Concept, thought, proof, logic, truth - these all are ideas only - every one of them exists only in the mind.

Quote

You refuse to see that if something is true assertion or false assertion  is in fact a belief.

No, that is exactly what I AM saying - assertions are unproven and therefore can only BE belief.

Quote

I may believe in a fact while others dont.

Facts are conditions of the physical world, a posteriori. Regardless of whether or not the fact is believed, it retains its properties in the physical world.

I have used this before, but it once again applies - even when all of mankind "believed" that the Earth was the center of the universe, that belief did not alter the physical fact that the Earth orbited the sun.

What you seem to want to do is conflate a priori (reason/concepts) with a posteriori (experience/facts). These are indeed seperate worlds and do not share a common boundary. The universe cares not one whit what any one of us thinks, dreams up, or believes. The universe responds only to what is real, facts, those aspects that make up the physical world.

Quote

Example.....our early ancesters thought that they knew the earth was flat but they were wrong. Although their belief about the earth was justified it was not true.

If a belief is to count as knowledge, it must not only be justified, it must also be true

Once again we are bumping straight into definition of terms: please define knowledge. Is it of the mind or is it a physical object? If it exists, what is the Length, Width, Height of knowledge? Where in the universe does the object we call knowledge exsit?

If it does not resolve to an object in the universe, then it must be a concept only. Please define the concept: knowledge.

As to our what our ancestors knew about the earth, technically they produced a hypothesis based on observation that the world was flat. That hypothesis was accepted until eventual discovery falsified the claim.

It was only belief in the sense that during that time period there was no way to establish the physical acts concerning the claim. It is really more accurate to state that a flat earth was thought to be the case. Belief can only be held in the mind about those things which cannot be shown to be either true or false. When it was shown that earth was not flat, that established a fact. That fact did not alter belief - it altered our understanding of the natural world.

Perhaps that is what you mean by the word knowledge - to my thinking shown above, this finding did not change belief and had nothing to do with truth but only falsified a held position about the nature of the shape of the earth.

This may seem like nitpicking, but I thought the idea of reason was to increase precision of thought and eliminate bias as much as possible.