Jump to content

Definition of Truth.


harshgoel1975
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dr. Funkenstein,

 

Well, good point. You cannot say anything about a thing if the thing is not already true and existant to say something about.

 

So truth would have at least two important parts. First a true thing to say something about, and then a correct statement about the thing.

 

For instance. To make a copy that is "true" to the original, you have to have an original to copy.

 

Kant suggested something like this in Critique of Pure Reason, with his table judgements leading to a table of categories that laid out everything one could say about a thing in general.

 

So when talking about truth, are we talking about the thing as it is, that we may not know directly, but only by its shadow, as in Plato's Cave, or are we talking about what we can say "in truth" about the thing?

 

In either case, both the objective truth to say something about, and a subjective sayer to match the "fact" correctly with a true statement about it, are important to the definition of truth.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely there is only one truth, and that is the truth of a objective nature. If we give subjective truths like" Bob being upset" without having the infliction of his anger conveyed in action or tonal quality, then the subjective nature of the statement is opinion, speculation and belief. And therefore not the truth, to bobs reality or the unsupported view of his condition, minus the factual display.

 

The only IN for subjective truth, could be put this way; From the mouth of a third party, "Bob is upset". Here, one party would have to have, beforehand knowledge of what Bob may be upset about. And while subjective in part, by one who receives this message, by not being in the actual presence of Bob. This truth may be subjective. This can only be however, without knowledge of what bob may be upset about. If the what about, is known, then the subjective nature of this truth is alive, only to it becomes objective(backed by a Fact).

 

If the word truth is to have any value in definition, it must be supported by a fact, being subjective then, despite it's connection to any perception, can not be a truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Funkenstein,

 

There was a point in your example where you required one to know what Bob was upset about, to make his upsetness an objective fact. I think you are forgetting that someone said he was upset, and even without knowing the reasons, Bob is still upset. There is an objective truthfullness to his condition as witnessed by the person who first learned of the upsetness, and passed it on.

 

There is a saying with my signature that indicates that no matter what you know there is an objectively true world about you that includes persons who also know something. If you add together what person A knows (facts?) and what person B knows (facts?) you get a sum which is greater than the total facts known by either party alone. But the objective world that A knows includes B and vice-a-versa. Thus the mere statement of Bob's upsetness, is also an objective fact.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, actually. Truth is what is what is not disprovable and what is coherent with the understanding of truth. In its fundamental essence, truth is not a fact or statement, but rather the way towards the truth, which is something that is nearly universally understood by near-sentient or sentient beings. With that being said, truth, or truthiness to be more specific (to describe it in its essence), is an eternal existence that exists regardless of physical reality. Additionally, it necessitates only awareness of it for it to be known and by the knowledge of verifiability, coherence, and objectivity, we confirm it exists.

In the above you give truth a meaning separate from objective fact, and gives it a external existence outside of physical reality "Fact"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members;

 

This is a subject that all philosophers study, and I am no exception. What must be considered is that there is more than one kind of truth, and that these different kinds of truth are more or less reliable because truth is always relevant. Truth is relevant to time and to perspective.

 

I think that I broke truth down into six different categories or kinds, then labeled them as to the least reliable, Simple truth, and the most reliable, Facts and Truisms.

 

truth is an opinion guided by one's perspective.

one truth is another man's lie.

two truths can lead to a lie.

lies can also lead to the truth.

this is of course my personal opinion.

 

Everything in Davidivad's above quote is true. It is actually quite good for a person who claims to not be a philosopher.

 

@Tar.

 

 

So the "correspondent theory"/ Redundancy theory" of truth is agreed upon by our views. which is to say, truth is objective. a mere predicate of the sentence.

 

The truth is, Bob is upset.

 

OR the truth may well be that Bob is pretending to be upset because he wants Martha's attention, and Martha has a very nice body. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Gee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gees,

 

But Davidivad's take can mean different things, depending on how you read it. It says two different things and approaches the issue from the liar's paradox type direction where the truth winds up appearing indeterminant. It reminds me of Eastern religious philosophy where you are only wise if you don't know anything, and are only getting anywhere if you're tired of being tired of being tired, and other such backward insideout clever stuff that you can see as deep or trivial depending on how you look at it.

 

My thinking is that truth is the stuff that was/is/will be the case, no matter what you say about it, or what you think about it. Its just the truth.

 

Like the Sun, the moon, the stars, the rivers and the oceans, the weather, the history of the world, the nations of the world, the religions of the world, the fishes and the birds, poison ivy, peanut butter cups, and Bob being upset at the bonehead call that Seattle made at the end of the super bowl.

 

Regards, TAR


(or pretending to be upset to impress a nicely shaped gal)

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar;

 

It's been a while.

 

Gees,

 

But Davidivad's take can mean different things, depending on how you read it. It says two different things and approaches the issue from the liar's paradox type direction where the truth winds up appearing indeterminant. It reminds me of Eastern religious philosophy where you are only wise if you don't know anything,

 

No. Davidivad's statements are clear and concise. You can't go around calling things mystical or religious just because you don't understand them. Maybe some examples would help to clarify this issue for you. Consider:

 

Davidivad wrote:

truth is an opinion guided by one's perspective.

one truth is another man's lie.

When I was a teen, I watched a movie about Jim Thorpe, American Indian and Olympic gold medal winner. In one scene he was in school talking to another student, who was also an Indian, and that student asked, "Why is it that when the White man wins, they call it a great victory, but when the Indian wins, they call it a terrible massacre?" He had a point. If the Indians had been writing that history, the words, victory and massacre, would have been reversed, because that was their truth. Truth is relevant to perspective.

Davidivad wrote:

two truths can lead to a lie.

I hated the SOB, but I did not kill him. Truth. I was at home alone when he was murdered. Truth. The Court found me guilty of murdering him. Two truths led to a ie.

Davidivad wrote:

lies can also lead to the truth.

The best example for this is in the story of King Solomon regarding the two babies. Two women were brought before him with two babies, one dead and one alive. Both women claimed to be the mother of the live baby. The first lie. King Solomon offered to cut the live baby in half and give half to each mother. It is generally agreed that Solomon had no intention of doing this, hence the second lie. One woman fell prostrate at King Solomon's feet, begged for the baby to be given whole and alive to the other woman, and declared herself to be a deceiver and liar. The third lie, and the one that proved that she was indeed the rightful Mother.

King Solomon pulled truth out of three lies.

My thinking is that truth is the stuff that was/is/will be the case, no matter what you say about it, or what you think about it. Its just the truth.

If I state that I am alive, it is the truth, but will it be the truth tomorrow? Next week? Next year? Maybe. Truth is relevant to time.

Like the Sun, the moon, the stars, the rivers and the oceans, the weather, the history of the world, the nations of the world, the religions of the world, the fishes and the birds, poison ivy, peanut butter cups, and

What would the double-slit experiment imply about these things? What is true? What is real?

Bob being upset at the bonehead call that Seattle made at the end of the super bowl.

But would the person, who made that call think that it was boneheaded? Or that it was a good call?

We all learn about truth from our parents when we are very young, and truth is a simple straightforward thing at that time. But we are no longer children, so we can not imagine truth to be what we would like it to be. We can't pretend. Truth is not static like fact. Truth is relevant. It is like philosophy's own special relativity. (chuckle)

Gee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gees,

 

You are not talking about what is/was/will be the case. You are talking about perspective as if one perspective is wrong and the other right.

 

What I am saying is the thing is true if it fits and makes sense from both perspectives, or any perspective.

 

Example.

 

Consider a see through analog clock with an hour hand, a minute hand, and a sweep second hand, mounted on a glass wall. From the front the hands are moving in a clockwise direction, from behind the hands are moving in a counter clockwise direction. The truth is, however that the hand are moving in only one direction. The perspectives do not create a paradox, they validate the true direction in which the hands are moving.

 

Or considering a neighboring star, 3 lys from here. There is only one instance of the star, extant in the universe at the moment. Yet it is true that it exists and is doing something now which we will not see for three years, and it is true that it shines in our sky tonight. But you take all observers of the star, near and far, imaginary or real and add up together what it is that they see, and the nature and truth of that star, and the distance between us and it, and us on Earth is realized when you put all the perspectives together. They do not contradict each other, they add up to the true fact.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't give truth a value based on perceptions which may or may not be in fact be true. A witness identified the perpetrator as the one who committed the crime, said witness was 100% positive of their identification. DNA result show that the perpetrator had nothing to do with the crime. The real criminal was captured and charged. This is just a sample of the outcomes, when truth becomes of value outside of the objective accompanying fact. Truth by perception, feelings etc cant be valid.

 

@ Gees, A massacre is a victory, and a victory could also be a massacre. who writes it doesn't matter since the truth is, one side loss and the other won, Fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Do we have scientific definition of truth(1).. hypothesis, postulates, thesis and theory... to be proven... or already proven by models and experiments or using mathematical tools...and as we inch further... we redefine.. so we refine truth rather one inch near to truth (2) ...can we say science is the quest to find truth (3) ....if not all ,most will say yes...and what if we found the truth .. there will no more be science(4)... it become final words(5)...... or .. we keep on fining the truth .. which is not definable(6). .. any comments

 

 

science does not deal with truth, it deals with things that seem true, that what make science be science, if it defines truth this defintion will make science itself unvalid, because science according to the definition of truth , the current one, and I think science will not have a defintion more different than the current defintion, science will be unvalid, because science is not true, science seems true but it isn't, so if science defines truth and according to its defintion , science itself is considered to be untrue, it is like someone killing himself, and science will not kill itself , it is better to seek a religious defintion, or a moral one or even a philosiphical one, I think science does not accept the concept truth at all, and who makes science , they are people enjoy themselves , by observing and predicting , they do not want things to be easy , to be divided into true and untrue . things should have thier truth level.

can we have a measurement for truth ? a level for truth, this concept is used in science , theories are half true , until another scientist change it to be of zero truth. so science uses the word truth in a very different way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my days of doing programming logic a statement like "This statement is False" would be a circular reference or something like that.

 

it is the same as standing in front of a mirror and you say" I am saying the truth" , and the mirror replies " I am saying the untruth", the statement is like a mirror, you say about it false it replies " I am true" you say it is true , the statement replies " I am false"

so you are true and the mirror or the statement is false, when you say the statement is false then it is false do not care a bout it , it is just an imaginary mirror, right. I mean the statement is lying :)

Edited by yahya515
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is the same as standing in front of a mirror and you say" I am saying the truth" , and the mirror replies " I am saying the untruth", the statement is like a mirror, you say about it false it replies " I am true" you say it is true , the statement replies " I am false"

so you are true and the mirror or the statement is false, when you say the statement is false then it is false do not care a bout it , it is just an imaginary mirror, right. I mean the statement is lying :)

Stupid mirror!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the over-riding truth of why any universe exists seems the question that defines overall reality...and a secondary truth pertains to the particular properties our universe has that allows sentience to develop within it...

Edited by hoola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Tar;

 

Please consider:

 

Gees,

 

You are not talking about what is/was/will be the case. You are talking about perspective as if one perspective is wrong and the other right.

 

Which is the basis for every war and argument, and is what we are doing right now, thinking that the other person is wrong, but I am right. Are you telling the truth? I think that I am telling the truth. If we disagree, does that mean that we are both liars? Or one of us is a liar?

 

This is Simple Truth and it is a subjective truth based on a person's thoughts, experiences, observations, and feelings, which come together to form an opinion. As long as we are being honest about our opinions, then we are telling the truth. Whether that truth ends up being right or wrong is irrelevant, as it is still the truth that we are honestly conveying. Truth is relative to perspective.

 

There are also objective truths; such as, truisms, universals, and facts. These truths require more than one perspective, so they are more reliable -- but they are not necessarily more true.

 

Whether it is objective or subjective, truth is simply an accurate reflection of something. Objective truths have more perspectives, so are often more accurate.

 

What I am saying is the thing is true if it fits and makes sense from both perspectives, or any perspective.

 

If you try to make truth "fit" or "make sense" you can corrupt it, because truth does not always fit or make sense.

 

I cut out your "Examples" as they were both about objects, and objects do not know truth.

 

 

I can't give truth a value based on perceptions which may or may not be in fact be true. A witness identified the perpetrator as the one who committed the crime, said witness was 100% positive of their identification. DNA result show that the perpetrator had nothing to do with the crime. The real criminal was captured and charged. This is just a sample of the outcomes, when truth becomes of value outside of the objective accompanying fact. Truth by perception, feelings etc cant be valid.

 

Everything that we know comes from perception. I remember reading a story about a lab that was messing up DNA testing, and the evidence from that lab sent some people to prison, who were innocent. There was a big stink about it because some of the people sent to prison were in Texas, and Texas still had, or has, a death penalty.

 

The perception of a witness and the perception of a lab tech are exactly the same, the only real difference is the procedures that the lab tech uses that should protect the facts, truth, if the lab tech follows the rules. Apparently someone didn't follow the rules/procedures.

 

If "truth by perception, feelings etc" is not valid, then the next time I am driving down the California coast while they are having earthquake warnings, I will be sure to be in the car alone. If my car is swallowed by an earthquake, but there is no one else in the car to confirm it, then it will not be the truth, so I will survive. Excellent.

 

Gee

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Gees,

 

The truth, in my estimation, has to fit, and make sense...by definition.

 

By making sense, I am not talking about the world fitting your model of it... that often does not happen, things are not always the way you think they are.

By making sense, I am talking about your model of the world being consistent with the facts of the world. Your senses are what brings the world into your model of it. Your sight, your sense of smell, your sense of touch, your inner ear, "truing you up" to the center of the Earth, your sense of taste telling you whether the thing you put in your mouth was food or poison, sweet, savory or bitter or sour. Your skin telling you whether it is hot or cold, hard or soft, sharp or smooth, dry or wet.

 

Things do not have to be right, to be true. Being right, is when the world matches your model. Being true is when your model matches the world.

 

And some philosopher once said, and I think it very pertanent to this discussion, that you know something is true, when it is true in more than one way.

 

Regards, TAR


If the Earthquake swallows your car, you are no longer driving on the road.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.