Quid est Veritas? The nature of truth.

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

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

30 Jan 2009, 12:07 am

Well, how do we know that we have valid information?

I mean, the input mechanism will be controlled by the law of non-contradiction, if the law does not allow for the truth to be expressed for whatever reason. If the truth requires the denial of the law of non-contradiction, how can it be understood as true? I am just being too weird and trippy I suppose.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

30 Jan 2009, 1:33 am

greenblue wrote:

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,

It is a true fact, that we burn our finger on hot iron - and now you declare it has nothing to do with word "truth" or "knowledge"?

greenblue wrote:

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 ...

Everything must questionable, if we would not do question everything, we still would sit in trees. But some issues are so often proven by experience that we can declare those for accurate and true.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

30 Jan 2009, 8:28 am

Dussel wrote:

It is a true fact, that we burn our finger on hot iron - and now you declare it has nothing to do with word "truth" or "knowledge"?

What is the difference between a "true fact" and a "regular fact", and perhaps even an "awesomely glorious fact"...?

Dussel wrote:

Everything must questionable, if we would not do question everything, we still would sit in trees. But some issues are so often proven by experience that we can declare those for accurate and true.

I question whether we ever sat in trees. Would that be acceptable to question?
Or just so long as I go with the flow and accept the mainstream answer?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Jan 2009, 10:17 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What is the difference between a "true fact" and a "regular fact", and perhaps even an "awesomely glorious fact"...?

A fact is a state of the world. A fact is what is. A true statement (about the world) is a statement that asserts a fact. Truth is a relation between statements and world-states, under the correspondence theory of truth.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

30 Jan 2009, 10:36 am

ruveyn wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What is the difference between a "true fact" and a "regular fact", and perhaps even an "awesomely glorious fact"...?

So a fact would be the essence of truth behind a true statement?

I wonder how one would know their facts then, if they must forever dig through all the true, false, and half-true statements. I suppose it would come down to a game of picking and choosing what they want to believe are the facts.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2009, 11:05 am

ruveyn wrote:

Well, the major issue is that we do not directly experience the world. We get some data, we involve a *lot* of interpretation of the data before we even recognize that we are interpreting it, and even then, we cannot know anything with confidence because we are involving induction, I mean, the criterion to even say that something is learned by induction is at the criterion of whomever decides to judge the necessary level of knowledge, not only that, but induction does not say anything about changes in rules, which are possible.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I suppose it would come down to a game of picking and choosing what they want to believe are the facts.

It always is.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Jan 2009, 1:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

So a fact would be the essence of truth behind a true statement?

A fact is that which is. Even in a world without sentient beings who make statement there are facts. The world is all the facts there are.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

30 Jan 2009, 1:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So a fact would be the essence of truth behind a true statement?

A fact is that which is. Even in a world without sentient beings who make statement there are facts. The world is all the facts there are.

ruveyn

You like your particular wording.... OK: Hail Grammaticus!

PS: and by the way, Chawwah is the etymon of Eve's name, regardless of how vav is pronounced in either Sephardi or Ashkenazi Hebrew today.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

30 Jan 2009, 2:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:

A fact is that which is. Even in a world without sentient beings who make statement there are facts. The world is all the facts there are.

ruveyn

Okey doke Wittgenstein.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

31 Jan 2009, 10:43 pm

but what is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
we both have truths
are mine the same as yours? - Some really dated musical...

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

Jump to:

Quid est Veritas? The nature of truth. Post Reply New Topic

Quid est Veritas? The nature of truth.