True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Last

True statements

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/13/09 - 03:30 PM: Subject: the truth about Goats	#501
Willowz wrote: What is the moral of goatism? When no one else does a good enough job of refuting my arguments, I am forced to refute them myself. That everything is a goat is a counter-argument to the case I put forth in the thread "how many hands do you have?" at http://forums.philosophyforums.com...nds-do-you-have-34253.html , in which I argued that it was obvious that I have two hands. I suggest we continue this discussion on the Goatism thread; I would be happy to do so.
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 07/13/09 - 03:36 PM:	#502
Cheshire wrote: The example of the "earth is flat" is one in which subjectivity produced an error, not a limit. We didn't have to leave earth to discover it was curved. People simply needed to remove the subjectivity of their position by making multiple observations from different points. Our observations concerning the earth are still subjective, but with some major errors eliminated in our understanding. In eliminating errors we move at least closer too unobstructed truth. "unobstructed truth". I like that. I think we can achieve objective truth even by ideal standards, but we may never know we actually have it, by the same standards. I assume you are using the phrase may never know in the sense of can't ever know. It is the difference between "We can not know" and "We can not know we know". I think this best represents the difference in our two ideas. It may not result in an agreement, but I find a mutual understanding just as valuable. I have had other people present the idea of us actually seeing reality the way it is blah, blah, blah. Your way of saying it is succinct. It is the part about not knowing we know that I am trying to focus on. The reason being that I encounter people who believe that they can know and that they are in possession of objective truth and they will not listen to reason because of it. If they could, for a second, admit the possibility that they do not know objective truth, that they could be wrong, then they might learn that they are in error and reform their views. The other reason I want to focus on it is that it presents the possibility that we know something and we are objectively correct and then we get some new information and alter our truth from objectively correct to incorrect. Again, we wouldn't have any way to know we had done that. We are always just doing the best we can. Suppose that the first philosopher guessed, from a few clues, that Earth was a sphere. The first scientists came along with their observations and declared Earth was truly flat and convinced the first philosopher that he was wrong. Once you consider all of this and realize that nobody can know for sure regardless of science or divine inspiration then you have the proper amount of skepticism and caution in what you accept as true...IMHO.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/13/09 - 03:41 PM:	#503
oag wrote: That is incorrect. If you see a dog, and I see a dog, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that there is a dog? Where do subjective and objective fit here?
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 07/13/09 - 03:43 PM:	#504
Cheshire wrote: I think the "the earth is flat" is a good example of subjectivity in action. Here the literal position of the observer causes a difference between the truth and the observation. At the time of observation the majority opinion would also favor subjective error. In science subjectivity can arise from favoring one hypothesis over another. Subjectivity can also result from a lack of information or understanding or willingness to critically examine ones own beliefs. Mostly subjectivity is the result of being human and subject to human error. In more general terms; subjectivity is a context relative to the person. So being subjective is A BAD THING?
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 07/13/09 - 03:45 PM:	#505
Cheshire wrote: I believe the question of justification is still on the table. I think true statements should be justified to a reasonable degree. I would suggest that the degree be rational. Requiring to much justification prevents the production of true statements, while too little tends to really muddy the water. Again, your "formula" doesn't work as a one-size-fits-all. One person may not view another person's justification as particularly reasonable. Some people have tremendous difficulty being rational. Consider it like a talent for art or music. Some people have a greater degree of that talent. The degree, reasonableness and rationality of justification for believing something to be true is going to vary in many subtle ways. The more measurements and input you can have about something the greater the degree of justification for believing it to be true. Nobody is really saying that truth requires absolute justification beyond Cartesian doubt. The only point I am ever trying to make is that Cartesian doubt leaves wiggle room for virtually any truth whatsoever to change, to be found untrue and revised.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/13/09 - 04:41 PM:	#506
Cheshire wrote: I I think true statements should be justified to a reasonable degree. All true statements? It is often unreasonable to demand a justification. In support of this, I offer the following arguments. The regress argument: Demanding that all statements be justified is itself problematic. It will result in either an infinite regress, every statement dependent on another; or in circularity, with every statement ultimately dependent on itself. An infinite regress is unachievable, and circularity is aesthetically unsatisfactory. Therefore there must be some unjustified truths The nature of truth: Lack of justification does not render a statement false; nor are all justified statements true. So what is gained by demanding justification? The nature of doubt: Doubt can only take place against a background of certainty. There must therefore be some things of which we are certain in order for us to doubt. Certainty: I suggest that there are obvious unjustified statements which are true and of which we may be certain. That I am writing this is one such example; that you are reading it is another.
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

enl1ghtened
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 20

Posted 07/13/09 - 07:45 PM:	#507
I beg of you to discredit this. Truth: Information provided by one who believes it to be accurate, with the intention to provide accurate information. Lies: Information provided by one who believes it to be false, and provides it with the intention to disinform another. To misinform would mean a lack of intent. To disinform is to intentionally provide false information.

stax
The daedal philosopher.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36

Posted 07/13/09 - 09:41 PM:	#508
enl1ghtened wrote: I beg of you to discredit this. Truth: Information provided by one who believes it to be accurate, with the intention to provide accurate information. Lies: Information provided by one who believes it to be false, and provides it with the intention to disinform another. To misinform would mean a lack of intent. To disinform is to intentionally provide false information. But that is the tell of a lie or truth? You are just talking about intent. What about if someone talks of something that is false, without the intent?
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer "To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 07/14/09 - 05:13 AM:	#509
oag wrote: Hold on a minute chief. Where did I ever say that there is no truth? oag wrote: To put is simply we never know THE truth

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 07/14/09 - 05:23 AM:	#510
There is no certainty about anything, only what you believe in. What does that mean? The truth is simply what YOU make it, if you care to agree with someone on this truth, then it does not make it anymore true than it was before you agreed with that someone. If it takes 100 people to agree on something before it becomes certain, then you are seeking approval which fundamentally is born out of a distrust in your own ideas and summations. I remember a post about crackpots and how people had agreed what was most likely true of a crackpot through certain characteristics. Keywords here are: most likely true If you believe what is most likely true to be truth then this is completely up to YOU, but to purport it as the truth to others is simply because, really to you, it is most likely true and quite possibly could be the truth, ergo you have little trust in what you believe in. These forums start to echo... Edited by Minyun on 07/14/09 - 05:49 AM

Page: First 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Last

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