True statements: Philosophy Forums

Forums Articles Gallery Links

Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help

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

True statements

Print

Print

Page: First 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Last

True statements

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/09/09 - 11:39 AM:	#431
Fenchurch wrote: "There is no objective reality" is self-defeating. Either it is supposed to be subjectively true and I am free to reject it, or it is supposed to be objectively true and winds up contradicting itself. This memo has been posted for roughly 2500 years. I'm puzzled as to why you felt it necessary to state something like this. I did not say that there is no objective reality. The part you quoted did not contain me saying that nor even hinting at it. I merely questioned Banno as to when the existence of objective reality had been confirmed. As far as I know that is impossible to do. And yet another person makes the fundamental mistake of conflating truth with knowledge. Well this is a very helpful reply. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of what I actually said here as well. What I actually said was, "True statements relate to a subjective observation of facts." What this means is that we cannot posit objective truth. The reason for that is that we do not have access to objective truth. We cannot KNOW that something is absolutely, 100%, immutably, universally, objectively true. We can only know that we believe it to be true. I have not conflated truth with knowledge. I have pointed out that we believe things to be true because that is how we see them. We cannot know beyond a Cartesian doubt that they are true unless we gain a "God's eye" view of reality where we know everything there is to know about everything. To put is simply we never know THE truth, we only know A truth. We make a statement. Whether we know it is true or not has no bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, true (unless the statement is self-referential and concerns our knowledge of it, I guess). If we make the statement as a truth then it is true. That car is red is true because I see a red car. It doesn't necessarily have to be red as I might be color blind but I can't possibly know it isn't actually red (from a God's eye POV) so for me it is truly red. The same is true for every truth we state. We believe it to be true but we can't know it actually is. If you're willing to accept that we've observed it to be true that the sun has risen in the east in the past, then you accept that there are true statements. You are only doubting the ability of induction to generate further true statements. That's a completely different issue and has little or nothing to do with what we've been discussing on this thread. Oh I'm sorry. Am I forbidden from introducing a new slant to the discussion? Am I required to stick only to what you've previously agreed upon? But that just gets us into a problem we were otherwise never in to begin with! Someone disagreeing? Oh no. If "objective reality" refers to what we agree on, then true statements don't necessarily refer to objective reality. I didn't think it needed clarification but I guess it does. When I refer to objective reality I am not referring to what we agree on because what we agree on is nothing more than similar perceptions of reality, all of which are entirely subjective. Objective reality is an abstract, theoretical construct referring to the way things actually are, the way that some mind would perceive them from outside of reality looking in and seeing everything unfiltered. We do not have that perspective. We only have individual, subjective perceptions of reality. That means that our individual perceptions of truth are never identical with objective truth, or if they are we can't possibly know that. Truth, knowledge, belief, and agreement all need to be kept distinct if we are to make any progress in this discussion (or if we are not to lose what progress we've made). They are all related. When a belief is strong enough, justified and reinforced enough, we declare that it is knowledge. It cannot be epistemic, objective knowledge beyond Cartesian doubt so it remains, on some level, belief. Since we can never actually know objective truth we can only ever state what we believe to be true. Where we find agreement in our subjective perceptions of what is true and what we know we simply have the reinforcement to declare them in a realis mood.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 07/09/09 - 11:48 AM:	#432
Truth, knowledge, belief, and agreement all need to be kept distinct if we are to make any progress in this discussion Divide. Divide. Divide. Divide. Div... Until you never reach 0. Don't you think it would be far simpler to group them and talk about them at once? That is to say instead of dividing to find truth, what if we combined them?

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/09/09 - 02:35 PM:	#433
Fenchurch wrote: But that just gets us into a problem we were otherwise never in to begin with! Such is life If "objective reality" refers to what we agree on, then true statements don't necessarily refer to objective reality. Because even though we agree, we could all be wrong (i.e., we could all agree to a false statement). And if that's the case, why call it objective reality? Good point. So let's drop talk of objective reality altogether, and go back to talking about reality - the world.
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 07/09/09 - 02:37 PM:	#434
Willowz wrote: I'm fine with being a newbie. I just hope that numbers don't give authority. Because how can authority be reasoned with? The problem is we are supposed to be nice to newbies...
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 07/09/09 - 02:54 PM:	#435
oag wrote: You are saying that it was never a fact that the Earth was flat but it was believed to be a fact. You are now suggesting that we now know the state of affairs of everything that we call a fact when everything that we now call a fact is STILL believed to be a fact. We don't have the means to tell what every "state of affairs" actually is. We only have the means to describe and define it according to how we currently see it. If we had a handle on every "state of affairs" or objective truth then we could close up the labs and send the scientists home. The reason that doesn't happen is because they will never know THE truth. They will only know a truth and then another and another. Each one will be a fact until it is superseded by another fact. Time and again people want to declare that a fact is an objective, immutable truth. If that were the case then we would never have to discard one fact and replace it with a new, improved one. You want to suggest that humans have objective knowledge of things but we don't...ever. I most certainly am Banno. I am writing this post. This is not just opinion, it is the state of affairs; this is what the world is like. These are facts. But you seem to think that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. This is obviously false. You set up a barrier of words between yourself and the truth, wanting to know not just what is true, but what is really true, and then what is really, really true, and then look surprised that the tortoise can out-argue you. I bet you would have once just laughed at the tortoise and moved on; before you started reading philosophy. I will just sit here, rolling up balls of paper and throwing them at you. It's very zen.
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 07/09/09 - 03:00 PM:	#436
Willowz wrote: As long as we don't have the absolute knowledge of what is true and false, such statements don't hold much water Why worry about whether knowledge is absolute or not? Drop the adjective and things will be fine. You can always change your mind later.
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 07/09/09 - 03:03 PM:	#437
Willowz wrote: ...and unfortunately I don't know. Tell me what should we agree upon? Can we lay out some fundaments to build upon? The last 42 pages sound to be about this question. Seems you understand our posts well enough. Let's go have a coffee and chat about it. Meet you down town. We agree far more often than we disagree.
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 07/09/09 - 03:08 PM:	#438
Minyun wrote: Divide. Divide. Divide. Divide. Div... Until you never reach 0. Don't you think it would be far simpler to group them and talk about them at once? That is to say instead of dividing to find truth, what if we combined them? What actually happens is that we divide until we get bored of it. THen we go do other things. This is called analysis, and is the best way to do philosophy. The alternative is the discursive method, which results in long, wordy, and oblique sentences. hard to read, and I don't think they are much fun.
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

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/09/09 - 03:19 PM:	#439
Banno wrote: I most certainly am Banno. Cogito ergo sum. That is the one thing beyond Cartesian doubt...for you. I am writing this post. This is not just opinion, it is the state of affairs; this is what the world is like. These are facts. As far as you can tell yes. What you have just described is how you see the world. But you seem to think that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. Nice straw man. I never said anything like this. We know plenty of things in a conventional sense that we have our individual perceptions of reality and we are sure of what is what. When I say that we don't know anything for certain, I am talking only in the epistemic sense that we cannot possess absolute certainty beyond Cartesian doubt. Do not set up a straw man by having me say that we can't know anything in any sense of the word because that is ridiculous. This is obviously false. Most straw men are. That is the point of using them. You set up a barrier of words between yourself and the truth, wanting to know not just what is true, but what is really true, and then what is really, really true Again, this is a straw man. I did not invent language. I am using the tools available to express simple ideas. If you can't follow them I can't help you. There is the truth as we see it. There is THE truth which is theoretical, objective and inaccessible to us. The barrier between myself, every other human being and THE truth (what is really true as you so cleverly put it) is that we are always operating from how we see things rather than how they really are. I only ever look surprised when someone like yourself tries to tell me that they see things the way they really are. I am forever amazed that someone can be that blind. and then look surprised that the tortoise can out-argue you. Who is the tortoise? Certainly not you. Your straw men are not out-arguing anyone. I will just sit here, rolling up balls of paper and throwing them at you. It's very zen. Well keeping your pastimes within the boundaries of your talents is always a good idea.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/09/09 - 03:43 PM:	#440
Straw man, straw man, straw man. What I say three times is true.
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 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Last

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