True statements: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

True statements

Page: First 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Last

True statements

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/29/09 - 01:19 PM:	#341
boagie wrote: A fact is truth if it is found to be so through your own biology, all meaning, all evaluations are biologically determined, what others say is truth, is hear say. So, if I pull a fact out of my ass, it would be true?
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 04/29/09 - 01:38 PM:	#342
StaticAge wrote: So, if I pull a fact out of my ass, it would be true? Good question.
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... Ned: Such is life

boagie
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
Location: canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 96

Posted 04/30/09 - 02:48 PM:	#343
StaticAge wrote: So, if I pull a fact out of my ass, it would be true? Rather a crude analogy but in the absence of consciousness/biology there is no meaning. The physical world in and of itself is without meaning, only a conscious subject can bestow meaning to the world.
It is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

Posted 05/06/09 - 11:58 AM:	#344
Oh dear, I've missed nine pages of progress. Or nine pages of posts, at least. Banno wrote: If the redundancy is warranted, it's not a redundancy, no? Perhaps. But if so, then correspondence is safer than ever. In those instances where we normally say "is true," the predicate is warranted and thus not redundant. In other cases, we don't normally say "is true." And whether or not a statement is true (regardless of whether or not the predicate is applied) is simply a matter of whether or not the statement accurately reflects (i.e. corresponds to) reality. Banno wrote: Another way of looking at the issue is to question the notion of correspondence. This seems overly verbose: * To say that "the cat is on the mat" is true is to say that "the cat is no the mat" corresponds to a state of affairs in the world It brings in the philosophical notions of states of affairs and correspondence. I don't think they are needed here. I think it better to replace correspondence with reference, and drop the whole idea of a state of affairs in the world. This gives the simpler * "the cat is on the mat" is true iff the cat is on the mat. This does the very same thing, but hopefully, rather than a composite relationship between "the cat is on the mat" and the cat being on the mat, it focuses on the relationship between "the cat" and the cat, between "the mat" and the mat, the relationship "being on", and the pragmatics of issuing an assertion. This strikes me as a more productive approach. But even if we break down the statement and focus on the parts, their relationship to the world is still one of correspondence. If the cat is not actually on the mat -- if that state of affairs does not obtain -- then the statement is false. And insofar as the state of affairs is both necessary and sufficient for the truth of the statement, how is correspondence between a statement and the world not constitutive of truth? And we must be clear that this is what we're talking about. The correspondence theory tells us what must be the case for something to be true, not what must be the case to justify using the predicate "is true." The latter may be affected by the correct constitutive theory of truth, but will not be the same thing as it. As such, I might suggest (contra you and sensabile) that coherence and redundancy theories have a place, but not as theories of truth. Banno wrote: Incidentally, the cat is lying on the bench next to the laptop, trying to stop me from typing. In which case, all your talk about the cat being on the mat is false -- and isn't it just like a cat to sabotage you in that way?
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

Posted 05/06/09 - 12:07 PM:	#345
I just saw that there is about a page worth of everyone's view on truth collapsing ("That's my view!" "No, that's my view!"). This seems to confirm my suspicion, noted earlier, that the correspondence and redundancy theories of truth basically agree on what constitutes being true and that the latter offers nothing new except for an interesting observation about certain sentences and how we could eliminate some words from our formulation without serious issues. Edited by Fenchurch on 05/06/09 - 05:43 PM
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

boagie
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
Location: canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 96

Posted 05/07/09 - 07:50 AM:	#346
A statement is true if it corresponds to the facts, but, this can only be determined by ones biology. Truth as all meaning, is biologically determined.
It is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 05/07/09 - 01:19 PM:	#347
boagie wrote: A statement is true if it corresponds to the facts, but, this can only be determined by ones biology. Truth as all meaning, is biologically determined. You have expressed this view several times, and I have ignored it. Perhaps it is time to pay it some attention, even though I suspect it is a troll. Bullshit. That there is ice on the polar caps of mars is not dependent on my biology. That I know that here is ice on mars, is. You need to refine your usage somewhat.
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... Ned: Such is life

boagie
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
Location: canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 96

Posted 05/07/09 - 01:50 PM:	#348
Banno wrote: You have expressed this view several times, and I have ignored it. Perhaps it is time to pay it some attention, even though I suspect it is a troll. Bullshit. That there is ice on the polar caps of mars is not dependent on my biology. That I know that here is ice on mars, is. You need to refine your usage somewhat. Since you put it so tactfully, how do you know as an individual that there is indeed snow on the caps of mars. Some consciousness/biology has determined that this is so. For all practical purposes you can only know in fact what you experience.If a collective is stating this as fact, outside of your trust in that collective you do not know there is snow of the caps of mars. In our everyday life all meaning, all truth, all values are determined by biology. Now if you insist that the snow is there on the caps of mars whether it is known or not, that cannot be known to you. If physics is telling us the truth, and consciousness creates thingness, then indeed in the absence of consciousness/biology there is no snow on the caps of mars. Reality for the collective is agreement, reality to the individual is perception. If you wish to speak of things unknown, be my guest. Edited by boagie on 05/07/09 - 01:56 PM
It is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 05/08/09 - 12:49 AM:	#349
A better post, Boagie boagie wrote: If physics is telling us the truth, and consciousness creates thingness, I don't seem to be able to find this in my college physics books. Granted they are a bit old. I have seen such stuff in, for example, What the Bleep do we know and other bullshit sources, but I am sure your account must come from a genuine scientific source. Can you provide an appropriate link? I should perhaps point out that I am using BS here in its legitimate technical sense, as per Frankfurt. Edited by Banno on 05/08/09 - 12:57 AM
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... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 05/08/09 - 12:56 AM:	#350
boagie wrote: In our everyday life all meaning, all truth, all values are determined by biology.... Reality for the collective is agreement, reality to the individual is perception. So reality is perception, yet is determined by biology... But if reality is perception, and biology is real, then biology is also perception. I can't see a way to make sense of this. It just appears confused.
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... Ned: Such is life

Page: First 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.