True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Last

True statements

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 616

Posted 06/22/09 - 12:53 AM:	#381
I'm sure that what I have to say was already said some 37 pages ago. Any ways, aren't we arguing here if something really exists? Walking along with a friend on Earth you look at the sky during night and see a supernova exploding. The supernova is close enough to make night into day. Looking at the event you ask your friend: "Am I dreaming?", He say's: "O my God, that's amazing". Therefore you conclude that the event is real and truth full. I'm not really good with slicing things into millions of pieces.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 06/22/09 - 07:19 AM:	#382
Banno wrote: are you saying folk can know things which are not true? Yes, Banno. I would even claim that everyone knows at least one thing that isn't true. The rational being - All humans are subject to error. I guess it could be called false knowledge. An unpopular notion in my experience.
Or not.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

Posted 06/22/09 - 01:07 PM:	#383
Vague Abstraction wrote: A statement is true under two circumstances. 1): If it corresponds to a definition. For example, if mathematicians say that a number raised to an exponent with a value of zero equals 1, that is the truth. There is no way to disprove this statement. and 2): If it is an instantaneous statement regarding an appearance. "My brother is presently thinking of his girlfriend." Surely this statement is truth-apt, but it is neither true (or false) by definition, nor an instantaneous statement regarding an appearance. I can say this, and be right or wrong about it, regardless of whether or not my brother is my line of sight or otherwise directly providing me with sensory input. It might just be that I am aware of the fact that he spends a lot of time pining away for his girlfriends whenever they are away from him and that his girlfriend is currently away from him (though for all that I could still be wrong). Vague Abstraction wrote: For example, if I see a flower at a given moment, I have a right to say that I am perceiving what I know as a flower. If my statement is about the past or the future, I am no longer correct for certain, because I can't predict the future, and that past could be my imagination. However, if it is about the instant at hand, it is certain. But now you're talking about justification, not truth. What makes something true is related to, but not the same as, what makes someone justified in believing it.
...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 06/22/09 - 01:11 PM:	#384
Cheshire wrote: A statement is true regardless of the agents believing, justifying, corressponding, observing, agreeing or otherwise determining. Corresponding is not something agents do. It is the relationship between a sentence and a state of affairs. Other than that, I agree. Cheshire wrote: I think these statements conflict with classical notions of justified true belief among others. We ascribe these descriptors to the statement to reflect our own perception of existence. However, like a tree falling in the woods, our perception doesn't create objective reality. Notions of justified true belief have to do with knowledge, not truth (otherwise we'd find ourselves in circularity). Almost everyone agrees that perception has nothing to do with truth (except, perhaps, truths about perceptions). Cheshire wrote: I would even claim that everyone knows at least one thing that isn't true. You can't know something that isn't true, you can only believe it. Whatever other things people want to argue about regarding knowledge, it is universally agreed that knowledge -- in the sense of knowledge that -- requires true belief.
...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

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 06/22/09 - 01:17 PM:	#385
Cheshire wrote: Yes, Banno. I would even claim that everyone knows at least one thing that isn't true. The rational being - All humans are subject to error. I guess it could be called false knowledge. An unpopular notion in my experience. Wouldn't this simply be a case of folk mistakenly thinking they know something, when in fact they are wrong? I put it to you that one can only know what is true, and that if it is not true, it is not known.
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

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 06/23/09 - 04:51 PM:	#386
Banno wrote: Wouldn't this simply be a case of folk mistakenly thinking they know something, when in fact they are wrong? I put it to you that one can only know what is true, and that if it is not true, it is not known. Ok, maybe I got this one wrong. If knowledge by definition is true. Then I have no argument.
Or not.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

Posted 06/26/09 - 12:12 PM:	#387
Cheshire wrote: Ok, maybe I got this one wrong. If knowledge by definition is true. Then I have no argument. You're thinking about what people believe they know, as opposed to what they actually know. When we can say we know and when we actually know are connected, but not the same.
...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

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 06/26/09 - 12:47 PM:	#388
Fenchurch wrote: You're thinking about what people believe they know, as opposed to what they actually know. When we can say we know and when we actually know are connected, but not the same. Yes, I agree; well stated. How do I tell when I actually know something or believe I know something. In the present they seem like similar experiences?
Or not.

Adamus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 7

Posted 06/26/09 - 01:34 PM:	#389
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” - Aristotle. Truth = mind corresponding with reality. Therefore a true statement is one that expresses the correspondence of the mind with reality.
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men - Plato

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 06/26/09 - 01:37 PM:	#390
by removing some of the recursion, it makes more sense. work out what belief, truth and knowledge are before you look at what you believe you know or know you believe
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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Last

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