Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Quid est Veritas? The nature of truth.

Page 1 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Jan 2009, 3:56 pm

Does truth exist?

Is it something that is invented or something that exists without invention?

Is it something to be sought for or something to hide from?

Do beliefs or desires change what is true, or merely express discontent with truth?



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

29 Jan 2009, 4:00 pm

Beliefs and desires can obscure or distort the truth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2009, 4:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?

Is it something that is invented or something that exists without invention?

Is it something to be sought for or something to hide from?

Do beliefs or desires change what is true, or merely express discontent with truth?


Truth is a predicate about the relation between statements and what the statements assert. The simplest definition of truth is the correspondence definition. A statement is true if and only the state of the world that it asserts is indeed that state of the world that is. Statements that doe not assert anything about the world are neither true nor false.

ruveyn



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

29 Jan 2009, 4:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?

"What is Truth" - Pontius Pilate :P

Quote:
Is it something that is invented or something that exists without invention?

I would say that something that is "invented" would be a 'Belief' (although that could be regarded as subjective/relative truth if I'm not mistaken) and something that exists without invention, to be the 'Objective Truth', because of the thought that that ought to exist, regardless.

Quote:
Is it something to be sought for or something to hide from?

The issue is to answer the question of wether or not we can get to perceive and acknowledge the objective Truth, or only to aproximate to it as far as humans can, but the possible aproximation doesn't go without conflicts.

Quote:
Do beliefs or desires change what is true, or merely express discontent with truth?

well, I regard a belief as a relative/subjective truth, not sure but I somehow think to be somehow equivalent, and yes, desire, hope and emotions influence our way to see things.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Jan 2009, 4:29 pm

Thanks for replying Greenblue, and yep that was Pilate who said "quid est veritas".



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Jan 2009, 4:38 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?

Yes.

Quote:
Is it something that is invented or something that exists without invention?

Without invention.

Quote:
Is it something to be sought for or something to hide from?

To be sought, regardless of what it is.

Quote:
Do beliefs or desires change what is true, or merely express discontent with truth?

Express discontent. Truth is independent of human volition.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

29 Jan 2009, 4:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?


We have a kind of "truth" in Mathematics, but given the fact that Mathematics is fully derivative from man-made axioms, it must be considered as tautological - even on highest thinkable level of complexity.

For the rest we have a high level of probability.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Jan 2009, 5:06 pm

Dussel wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?


We have a kind of "truth" in Mathematics, but given the fact that Mathematics is fully derivative from man-made axioms, it must be considered as tautological - even on highest thinkable level of complexity.

For the rest we have a high level of probability.

But that doesn't determine whether or not truth exists- only that we can't be 100% certain that we know what truth is. Truth exists independent of human perception, and we have a limited ability to understand it.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2009, 6:06 pm

Orwell wrote:
Dussel wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?


We have a kind of "truth" in Mathematics, but given the fact that Mathematics is fully derivative from man-made axioms, it must be considered as tautological - even on highest thinkable level of complexity.

For the rest we have a high level of probability.

But that doesn't determine whether or not truth exists- only that we can't be 100% certain that we know what truth is. Truth exists independent of human perception, and we have a limited ability to understand it.


Look in your wallet and state what is in you wallet. If you have stated the contents of your wallet accurately who have uttered a true statement.

Making particular true statements is trivial. Making general true statements is another matter entirely.

ruveyn



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

29 Jan 2009, 6:25 pm

Orwell wrote:
Dussel wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?


We have a kind of "truth" in Mathematics, but given the fact that Mathematics is fully derivative from man-made axioms, it must be considered as tautological - even on highest thinkable level of complexity.

For the rest we have a high level of probability.

But that doesn't determine whether or not truth exists- only that we can't be 100% certain that we know what truth is. Truth exists independent of human perception, and we have a limited ability to understand it.


Quite simple: Touch with unprotected fingers red-hot piece of iron! Painful? You ask a lot other people how did the same, they say also it is painful, read accounts, you make your research and learn about the electron gas in metals which transport heath well and about proteins (e.g. of your skin) reaction under heath and about nerve signals etc. pp.

So obviously touching such a hot iron has a predicable consequence, a consequence which is in line with other theories and our model of the world, we can say with nearly 100% truth what is going on. If you are in doubt regarding the term "nearly", ok: burn your fingers!



Last edited by Dussel on 29 Jan 2009, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

29 Jan 2009, 6:26 pm

Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi

"Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names."



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Jan 2009, 6:37 pm

Dussel wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Dussel wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does truth exist?


We have a kind of "truth" in Mathematics, but given the fact that Mathematics is fully derivative from man-made axioms, it must be considered as tautological - even on highest thinkable level of complexity.

For the rest we have a high level of probability.

But that doesn't determine whether or not truth exists- only that we can't be 100% certain that we know what truth is. Truth exists independent of human perception, and we have a limited ability to understand it.


Quite simple: Touch with unprotected fingers red-hot piece of iron! Painful? You ask a lot other people how did the same, they say also it is painful, read accounts, you make your research and learn about the electron gas in metals which transport heath well and about proteins (e.g. of your skin) reaction under heath and about nerve signals etc. pp.

So obviously touching such a hot iron has a predicable consequence, a consequence which is in line with other theories and our model of the world, we can say with nearly 100% truth what is going on. If you are in doubt regarding the term "nearly", ok: burn your fingers!

Um.... I'm agreeing that reality exists, so I don't know what the hell your's and ruveyn's problem is. I merely stated that human perception is flawed and we can not always know everything with 100% accuracy. Your finger-burning example is meaningless.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

29 Jan 2009, 6:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
Dussel wrote:
Quite simple: Touch with unprotected fingers red-hot piece of iron! Painful? You ask a lot other people how did the same, they say also it is painful, read accounts, you make your research and learn about the electron gas in metals which transport heath well and about proteins (e.g. of your skin) reaction under heath and about nerve signals etc. pp.

So obviously touching such a hot iron has a predicable consequence, a consequence which is in line with other theories and our model of the world, we can say with nearly 100% truth what is going on. If you are in doubt regarding the term "nearly", ok: burn your fingers!

Um.... I'm agreeing that reality exists, so I don't know what the hell your's and ruveyn's problem is. I merely stated that human perception is flawed and we can not always know everything with 100% accuracy. Your finger-burning example is meaningless.


In my finger-burning-example it works in all known cases with 100% accuracy. If you are in doubt? Test it!
But I warned you!



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Jan 2009, 6:56 pm

Dussel wrote:
In my finger-burning-example it works in all known cases with 100% accuracy. If you are in doubt? Test it!
But I warned you!

To the best of our perception, it does work in all known examples. I am highly confident that it is accurate, confident enough that I'm not going to risk burnt fingers over it. And it would be stupid to take a risk even if the confidence was as low as 30%, much less the near-certainty we have on the particular subject.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

29 Jan 2009, 7:19 pm

Dussel wrote:
In my finger-burning-example it works in all known cases with 100% accuracy. If you are in doubt? Test it!
But I warned you!

Orwell is right, the burning-fingers example becomes meaningless, regarding the philosophical aspects of truth, belief, knowledge (epistemology) and metaphysics, I see the analogy to be faulty. However, I agree that the close we could get to the "truth", is probability, but that in itself is not safe from conflict, because the means of pointing to an assumed probability could be questionable and innacurate, not to mention that there is always conflict relating to agreement of results.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2009, 8:07 pm

Dussel wrote:
Quite simple: Touch with unprotected fingers red-hot piece of iron! Painful? You ask a lot other people how did the same, they say also it is painful, read accounts, you make your research and learn about the electron gas in metals which transport heath well and about proteins (e.g. of your skin) reaction under heath and about nerve signals etc. pp.

So obviously touching such a hot iron has a predicable consequence, a consequence which is in line with other theories and our model of the world, we can say with nearly 100% truth what is going on. If you are in doubt regarding the term "nearly", ok: burn your fingers!

I think in order for this example to be valid, you have to presuppose a large number of facts as valid, and thus you are sort of stuck. I mean, asking other people is only valid if other people are valid sources of information, but there is little reason to presuppose that other people are valid sources of information, or anything like that. I mean, your empirical framework to a certain extent only seems to result in much truth in a modern environment, but let's just say that you lived a decade ago. By empirical methods, you would probably start believing in demons. You might be more systematic than the rest of your community, but that would probably only push you into being more like a theologian.