True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Last

True statements

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/02/09 - 01:01 PM:	#401
bolso wrote: Some statements are true. Some statements are believed. The two are not the same. You can know a statement only if it is both true and believed. so I can believe any statement I like that has nothing to do with truth. some statements are true, i.e. they tell something true, which means... something ... real? logic? coherent? younameit...? but don't use true in the above Banno wrote: ...We, successful users of English, manage to identify which statements are true and which false, and overwhelmingly we agree on what is the case and what is not. Disagreement seems to be peripheral, rather than central. If we don't know what truth is, whence such success in it's use?
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

bolso
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 07/03/09 - 11:51 AM:	#402
I wonder what the successfull users of chinese or arab manage to identify as true statements and overwhelmingly agree on... Seriously... do epistemologists accept "truth" in a statistical sense?

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/03/09 - 01:28 PM:	#403
bolso wrote: I wonder what the successfull users of chinese or arab manage to identify as true statements and overwhelmingly agree on... Seriously... do epistemologists accept "truth" in a statistical sense? Some do, but not I. My point is that we have a pretty good idea of what truth is, even if it is difficult to state. One reaches a point where one stops talking and just gets on with it. Truth is one of those points. See what the Tortoise said to Archilles.
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

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 617

Posted 07/05/09 - 12:20 PM:	#404
Get on with what Banno? With whatever truth you believe in?
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/05/09 - 02:25 PM:	#405
Willowz wrote: Get on with what Banno? With whatever truth you believe in? One of the problems I see here is the way believing and knowing are treated as if they were something one does on one's own. But have you ever noticed the great extent to which we agree as to what is the case? Notice the muddle implicit in the phrase "whatever truth you believe in"? If it is a truth, I am content to believe it.
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

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

Posted 07/06/09 - 10:51 AM:	#406
phenomenon wrote: How about this: Truth is the state of affairs as they actually exist. Truth relates to an objective reality which holds constant and is interpreted by subjective actors. Truth is a property of sentences. A sentence is true when it corresponds to a fact. A fact is a state of affairs as it actually exists. So truths (that is, true statements) relate to an objective reality, but are not themselves states of affairs. phenomenon wrote: The problems with recognizing truth is what I think this thread has been mostly about, but I skipped a few pages so I'm not sure. The thread has been mostly about what it takes for a sentence to be true (i.e. "what is truth?"), not how to recognized truth. Recognizing truth as truth is dealt with by theories of knowledge. Banno wrote: Sometimes I feel hungry. While it is true that I am hungry, I don't suppose we would describe that fact as "objective". But it is an objective fact that your stomach and brain are interacting in such a way as to produce the feeling of hunger in you. That's all we need. Because the contention is that it is an objective fact that you feel hungry, not that your hunger is an objective sensation. bolso wrote: So I can believe any statement I like, that has nothing to do with truth. You can if you'd like. Most of us prefer to believe true things, and believing false things can get you into all sorts of trouble. For one, no one will take your arguments seriously. But more importantly, try explaining to a police officer that you didn't believe robbing a bank was illegal. bolso wrote: Some statements are true, i.e. they tell something true. Which means something: real? logical? coherent? you-name-it? But don't use "true" in the above. Some statements are true, which means they correspond to a fact (i.e. a state of affairs). There's plenty of reading material on the matter both earlier in the thread and all around the internet if you're interested.
...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 07/07/09 - 08:41 AM:	#407
Fenchurch wrote: Truth is a property of sentences. A sentence is true when it corresponds to a fact. A fact is a state of affairs as it actually exists. So truths (that is, true statements) relate to an objective reality, but are not themselves states of affairs. I agree that A sentence is true if it corresponds to a fact. An ideal fact is a state of affairs as it actually exists. I disagree that true statements universally relate to an objective reality, because an agent is required to determine whether correspondence is actually present. History, has shown our facts to be less than ideal, so our true statements relate to a subjective interpretation of objective reality. The better the facts the better the interpretation. Edited by Fenchurch on 07/08/09 - 11:05 AM. Reason: quote tag
Or not.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/07/09 - 10:10 AM:	#408
Did someone find a way to confirm that there is an objective reality while I wasn't looking? I missed the memo. True statements relate to a subjective observation of facts. They can never relate to the way things actually, objectively are because we don't and can't know that. We observe something repeatedly and consistently. We then invent, form, create, compose or otherwise pull out of our butts, a truth statement regarding the consistency of that observation. Sunrise is always in the east because that is what we have always observed and every observation about the rotation of Earth and the position of the sun tells us this is true. The truth of it is recursive. We've observed it to be true and stated it in such a way as to be a true observation.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/07/09 - 02:14 PM:	#409
oag wrote: Did someone find a way to confirm that there is an objective reality while I wasn't looking? I missed the memo. (Rolls the memo up and throws it at Oag.)
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 07/07/09 - 02:42 PM:	#410
Cheshire wrote: I disagree that true statements universally relate to an objective reality, because an agent is required to determine whether correspondance is actually present. History, has shown our facts to be less than ideal, so our true statements relate to a subjective interpretation of objective reality. The better the facts the better the interpretation. That we are sometimes mistaken as to the facts simply does not mean, as you seem to imply, that there are good facts and bad facts. Grammatically, either a statement is true, or it is not; either it is a fact, or it is not. Facts do not admit of degrees. The notion of subjectivity here perhaps derives from the error of Descartes' cogito. It fails to notice that statements are made in a language that is constructed and learned by being a member of a society. One is able to rationalize only because one can speak, so Descartes' skepticism presupposes language. But that presupposes being embedded in a society - it presupposes "the other", as some like to call it. The "agent" you mention is not an individual. Objective reality ( ) is best thought of as the stuff we agree on.
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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Last

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