The Truth Paradox: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The Truth Paradox » The Truth Paradox

The Truth Paradox

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Truth Paradox

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/05/07 - 12:21 PM:	#11
Beckett wrote: It is invalid to say you've discovered something's true, without a prior truth to discover it with. How could you possibly know this to be true? Indeed, that all truth is based on the a priori strikes me as plain muddled-headed. it's not even wrong, to use the cliché. I am most certain that I am writing this post. I am certain because I have no reason to doubt it - indeed, I cannot understand, as I write this, what might constitute such a reason. Folks, doubt only makes sense against a background of certainty.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/05/07 - 01:01 PM:	#12
Banno wrote: Come on. The Matrix was fiction. Do you have any reason to think you are a brain in a vat? No, I assure you, I am definitely writing this post. If I were a brain in a vat, being stimulated in such a way that I truly feel as if I really exist, I would have no reason to doubt that I exist, however, I would still be existing only as a brain, and not as the human body I feel I am existing as. For example: Although 'Man A' may have no reason to doubt that his wife is remaining faithful to him, he doesn't realise that she is actually cheating on him behind his back. Just because we have no reason to doubt something, doesn't mean that it is true.

Beckett
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2006
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 154

Posted 03/05/07 - 01:30 PM:	#13
But then you shift to saying "it throws the whole concept of our ability to gain awareness of actual truth into question" and "Yes. It is invalid to say you've discovered something's true, without a prior truth to discover it with." But you have established nothing of the kind. I can happen to believe a great many things that turn out to be true without in fact having proved them. I'm not argueing against truth itself. I'm sorry. I don't know how you misunderstood that. I'm argueing that truth might not be learnable. In order to justify something you need a truth to justify it. And I already added the addon paradox. Which states that if you need truth to justify truth, then either we already know truths without having learned them or we cannot prove that you need truth to justify truth. I could be wrong about some of these thing, but I know of no convincing skeptical argument that I could be wrong about absolutely everything. Therefore I do know some things, and perhaps a great many things, I am at best uncertain as to whether each specific thing I believe are true"a very different proposition. "Truth" is the problem here. What is truth and how do we know it? A skeptic generally defines truth as that which is cognitively impossible to form a doubt on when known. Scepticism can only show we might be wrong about particular cases and this does not deny the possibility of knowledge. I agree. Many skeptics don't go so far as to deny that gaining knowledge is impossible, they just don't know if they have found anyone yet who has true knowledge. A good way to consider skepticism is this: A skeptic is one who believes that all belief is independent of truth. Whether or not that belief is true they don't know. But it is commonly held that every conclusion must be based on a thread of primeses that ultimately are unproven. How could you possibly know this to be true? I already pointed that paradox out. Come on. The Matrix was fiction. Do you have any reason to think you are a brain in a vat? No, I assure you, I am definitely writing this post. Just because the Matrix was fiction story doesn't mean all of its ideas are implausible. I am most certain that I am writing this post. I am certain because I have no reason to doubt it So you define certain as something that has no reason to be doubted. But I see no reason not to consider it possible that you're only dreaming. Edited by Beckett on 03/05/07 - 01:34 PM

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1239

Posted 03/05/07 - 02:15 PM:	#14
I failed to be clear on my objection, and why I thought you were slipping and sliding. Beckett wrote: I'm not argueing against truth itself. I'm sorry. I don't know how you misunderstood that. I'm argueing that truth might not be learnable. In order to justify something you need a truth to justify it. And I already added the addon paradox. Which states that if you need truth to justify truth, then either we already know truths without having learned them or we cannot prove that you need truth to justify truth. "Truth" is the problem here. What is truth and how do we know it? A skeptic generally defines truth as that which is cognitively impossible to form a doubt on when known. In these passages you confuse justification with proof, and even a proof that is cognitively impossible to doubt. There is a difference between justification, which involves evidence, and is adequate to establish knowledge, if knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Justification is not indubitable proof starting from known premises. Let me try some examples: S1) I am not a kudzu plant as I understand the term kudzu plant and the properties of kudzu plants. S2) I am not the planet Saturn as I understand the term planet Saturn and the properties of the planet Saturn. S3) I am not both a kudzu plant and the planet Saturn, as I understand these terms and their properties. Now I think I am superbly justified in believing 1) and 2), and have difficulty even imagining what it might mean to be wrong about 3). Further these statements are justified not by a single foundational proof that might be wrong, but by vast abundance of evidence, vast portions of which could be wrong, and the statements in question would still be true. (There are frequently better mechanisms of justification than a logical proof from a limited number of premises) In short, I think your problem is not that you do not recognize the concept of truth, but that you do not distinguish proof from justification, realize that justified beliefs that happen to be true are all that is required for knowledge.
NBR

Beckett
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2006
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 154

Posted 03/05/07 - 03:02 PM:	#15
There is a difference between justification, which involves evidence, and is adequate to establish knowledge, if knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Evidence must be taken as true to the conclusion in order for it to mean anything. Thus my statement that truth is needed to justify/prove a truth, still stands. But if you don't like me using justified as a synonym for proof, you're at liberty to abandon that word from my arguement. I don't care about the word "justified." I care about the concept getting accross. I am not a kudzu plant as I understand the term kudzu plant and the properties of kudzu plants. You can be feasibly confident that certain things are not you but I doubt you can be certain. Those who disagree with skepticism in this way seem to be misinterpreting the skeptic interpretations of knowledge, truth, and learning. Skeptical Interpretations: Truth - That which when gained is an absolute impossibility to question; that which makes you God/perfect. Syn. Certainty Knowledge - The state of Godhood/perfection and undoubtability when truth is found. Learning - A scrutiny that is so strict only truth and absolutely nothing else, is allowed into the mind. Now I respect that there are other ways to interpret the above three things but if you deny that we can be so scrutinous that we only discover that which when gained is an absolute impossibility to question in any way; that which produces the state of Godhood, perfection, and undoubtability then you're considered a skeptic by my book.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 2830

Posted 03/05/07 - 04:16 PM:	#16
I think to battle the doubt here we must fall back on some sort of pragmatism. To believe x is to act as if x is true without the need to confirm x. To doubt x then requires a justification: why should I confirm x, rather than take it for granted? It is invalid to say you've discovered something's true, without a prior truth to discover it with. Doesn't mean the discovered truth is a priori. You can gain certainty of a posteriori truths without having these truths "inherently," by unifying an empirical concept with a direct reference to an individual actual or possible external sensible object.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Beckett
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2006
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 154

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/05/07 - 04:49 PM:	#17
You can gain certainty of a posteriori truths without having these truths "inherently," by unifying an empirical concept with a direct reference to an individual actual or possible external sensible object. Are you saying you don't need truth to prove truth? Ok if the basis which we used to reach a truth was not already proven true, well how are you gonna prove (a.k.a gain knowledge) of a truth out of ignorance of truth? It is illogical to say that you can learn truth from that which is ignorant of the truth. Thus it is logical to say that truth can only be learned or proven from something that you already know is true. The notion that you need knowledge of the truth to gain knowledge of the truth is a paradox. To fight a paradox is like a snake eating its tail. If you deny one claim you'll be in support of another in the paradox which will ultimately lead you into supporting the claim that you're denying. Edited by Beckett on 03/05/07 - 04:53 PM

Nikola Tesla
Blake McFarland

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Location: Tis' the fabric of the cosmos
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/05/07 - 05:08 PM: Subject: To Beckett	#18
Indeed, Empirical-skeptics are critical of your assertion and will inturn say-Pure logical thinking will yeild no knowledge of the empirical world-all knowledge begins in experience and ends in it-Albert E. So what is your apology to the contrary? This is the action i have lived to acquire a greater truth of. Edited by Nikola Tesla on 03/06/07 - 11:37 AM
Falsify not the words of eternity, for eternity shall falsify decisiveness-warp ever so slightly the molecules that contribute to life and nullity will denote eternity....By me-Blake McFarland Laboravorsky

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1239

Posted 03/05/07 - 06:10 PM:	#19
Beckett wrote: Skeptical Interpretations: Truth - That which when gained is an absolute impossibility to question; that which makes you God/perfect. Syn. Certainty Knowledge - The state of Godhood/perfection and undoubtability when truth is found. Learning - A scrutiny that is so strict only truth and absolutely nothing else, is allowed into the mind. Now I respect that there are other ways to interpret the above three things but if you deny that we can be so scrutinous that we only discover that which when gained is an absolute impossibility to question in any way; that which produces the state of Godhood, perfection, and undoubtability then you're considered a skeptic by my book. First let me note that your definition of truth makes no sense. It should be pefectly obvious, and I thought you had agreed to this, that a statement is true regardless of our knowledge of its truth. Statements can be true or false regardless of our or God's ability to know them. Do you agree or diagree? Hmm, let us consider that you have defined something that might be called s-knowledge. Now let us consider something called O-knowledge. Where O-knowledge is defined as: Knowledge=Justified true belief Belief=A belief sufficiently strong that one would act on it without pause, in spite of some residual doubts. Justification=Evidence for the belief. Now let me ask, how do s-knowledge (defined as you have defined it) and O-knowledge compare? If your argument is to make any sense whatsoever, then there are fewer statements that are known in s-knowledge than in O-knowledge. Do you think this is true? If so then you have admitted something is knowable. But admit this and there is more I wish to say. Could you actually think that that are statements that are fewer statements known in O-knowledge than in s-knowledge. This refutes your argument and also admits that something is knowable. Do you think that it is uncertain whether that there are more known statements in S-knowledge than in O-knowledge. Then 1) why did you make the distinction, and 2) admit this and I will provide a further argument. In short, choose an option and I will continue the argument. If you cannot choose an option, I will assume you don't care what you are saying. PS1: Do you really think that I am not justified in thinking I am not a Kudzu plant, according to my defintion of the term kudzu plant and its properties? Please provide an argument as to why I am a Kudzu plant, and while you are at it, provide an argument that am not both a kudzu plant and the planet Saturn, according to my definition of these terms. In all honesty, I have no doubt I am not a kudzu plant under the stated conditions, and cannot even imagine doubts as to why I am not both a kudzu plant and the planet Saturn? Have any actual arguments?--note that both are compeletely invulnerable to the usual 'you could be brain in a vat' argument. PS2: Be careful about asserting what you, as against what sceptics think, unless you want to get into an historical argument about how your thought does or does not differ from various persons that have been historically labeled sceptics, such as Skepticus Empiricus. Edited by Nonblack Raven on 03/05/07 - 07:02 PM
NBR

Nikola Tesla
Blake McFarland

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Location: Tis' the fabric of the cosmos
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/06/07 - 11:21 AM: Subject: To Non-Black Raven	#20
I am Plato-you are then to be denoted as Socrates-I therefore, under conciderable reasoning of this trifiling particular,am your sutdent,a student who asks for his teacher to impart unto him information constructed by studious inquiry.
Falsify not the words of eternity, for eternity shall falsify decisiveness-warp ever so slightly the molecules that contribute to life and nullity will denote eternity....By me-Blake McFarland Laboravorsky

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.