on truth

[Gerardo]

uday is correct, the agw thread had devolved into a series of hijackings (and i was as guilty as anyone)... but i do think an interesting discussion was brewing, so here's the last post in that thread

Unlike some who post here, it doesn't bother me if you chose to use your own definition of a word.  I admire that you have considered it deeply enough to have an opinion about the meaning. 

 

I still disagree, though.

you're the only one i've seen posting here who has admitted that definitions aren't important (unless, i suppose, they're yours)

You [Lobowolf] advanced this axiom: a postulate or its negation must be true.  All this really does is provide a basis to create a system of logic, an argument (a priori) based upon that system, that produces a conclusion that follows and is a logical necessity.

no winston, that is *not* "all this really does"... the statement (axiom) itself is true, do you agree?

Oh Gödel!

 

This is not necessarily true.

[Winstonm]

Anyway, I think you're conflating two separate things - truth and knowledge. You seem to keep returning to this notion of using an unproven truth as an axiom or as a premise in an argument to further prove something else. I'm not saying that an unproven truth is USEFUL; clearly, an argument is only as good as its weakest premise.

 

You said in your last post (or almost your last post) in the previous thread that truth is the result of empirical investigation. This is inaccurate; the truth PRECEDES empirical investigation. The result of investigation is not truth; it's knowledge. The truth is already there.

 

 

[I have been accused at times (and properly at times) of creating my own definitions. Any attempt I have made to explain my understanding of a word has not been in order to support my ideas but only to try to explain my thinking so others might understand how and why I came to my conclusions. I will attempt to correct those errors going forward and will start with my incorrect useage of the word "truth". By application of proper definition, some statements I make now and going forward will be completely opposed to my preceeding positions and some of those statements.)

 

Lobowolf, you are completely correct that I misapplied the term truth; truth is proven by logic; however, truth still does not (necessarily) precede empirical investigation - actually, truth and empirical investigation are totally unrelated.

 

Truth is only one resolution of the dichotomy of true or false as applied to concepts. Truth itself is only a concept - it exists in the mind alone - it does not resolve to an object in the universe. Existence does resolve to an object in the universe. Existence is physical. Existence is a posteriori; truth is a priori. Truth can only be proven logically, never empirically. What you seem to be classifying as empirically-proven truth (you call knowledge) is only to me an obervation, a fact that fits or does not fit a hypothesis, and thus is neither proof nor truth. Science does not prove; ony logic proves; when logic proves, we call that truth. But logic, proofs, and truths are concepts, they occur only in the realm of the mind, so they have no bearing on the physical world. (This is not the same as saying logic is unimportant. It is.)

 

You gave an example in another thread something on the order of two last people on earth and each making a statement, one saying other intelligent life can be found in the universe and his buddy saying other intelligent life cannot be found in the universe and then they both die. You stated (if memory serves) that what one of the two guys said had to be true.

 

That is not accurate. The entire statement (found or not found) is true, but only because it is based on an axiom of classical logic, The Law of Excluded Middle. Neither of the individual claims within the entire statement is either true or false. Truth is a concept - even if there were a method to determine if either claim was factual, it would not mean that the proven claim was true - truth is a priori and can only be proven a priori. Empirical evidence cannot prove a concept just as a concept cannot prove existence.

 

What assertions we wish to place into the configurations makes no difference whether the configuation remains loyal to its axiom and therefore true. We could have one of these two last humans state that an invisible tooth fairy can be found in the universe and the other say that no invisible tooth fairy can be found in the universe and the statement would still be true according to axiom.

 

Change it a bit - It is raining outside or in is not raining outside. That is true statement regardless if we open the door and look. The statement is true because of its supporting axiom. Verification of the weather does not affect the truthfulness of the statement that one or the other is occuring.

 

Truth is axiomatic. Fact is empirical.

[dburn]

The terms "analytic" and "synthetic" may assist you. Or, of course, they may not.

[Lobowolf]

You gave an example in another thread something on the order of two last people on earth and each making a statement, one saying other intelligent life can be found in the universe and his buddy saying other intelligent life cannot be found in the universe and then they both die.  You stated (if memory serves) that what one of the two guys said had to be true.

 

That is not accurate.  The entire statement (found or not found) is true, but only because it is based on an axiom of classical logic, The Law of Excluded Middle.  Neither of the individual claims within the entire statement is either true or false.

It's not the case that one of the statements is true "because of" the Law of the Excluded Middle; it's true because it corresponds with an external reality. The Law of the Excluded Middle simply recogizes an existing truth - that one of two possible configurations of the universe must be the case.

 

There's a portion of the LSAT called "Analytical Reasoning" (aka "Logic Games"), and it frequently sets up a problem something like this:

Bob attends 4 different classes on M, T, and/or W. A class does not meet more than once on a given day, but it may meet on more than one day during the week.

 

Bob attends a math class that meets on exactly two days, which are consecutive.

 

etc. etc.

 

The student should deduce, correctly, that Bob attends the math class on Tuesday. Because there are only possibilities - M & T; or T & W. Either way, T is included. There's no artificial axiom that necessitates his attending class on Tuesday; there's just no other possibility. Similarly, there either is, or there is not, intelligent extraterrestrial life. Not because of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Things didn't start falling down when the Law of Gravity was formulated. First, gravity existed. It was "true." Then, it was better understood and mathematical explanations of it were formulated.

[y66]

The terms "analytic" and "synthetic" may assist you. Or, of course, they may not.

Why take such an all or nothing approach?

[blackshoe]

There is no gravity. The Earth sucks.

[luke warm]

The terms "analytic" and "synthetic" may assist you. Or, of course, they may not.

frege you, man

[Winstonm]

It's not the case that one of the statements is true "because of" the Law of the Excluded Middle; it's true because it corresponds with an external reality.

 

It is critical to define truth. My understanding of this word is that in logic it is one resolution of the dichotomy, true or false, and that the proof of true or false takes the form of a sound argument in a system of logic, so that nothing is either true nor false unless logically proven. If we are not on the same page, then we are spinning our wheels in the Alabama mud and waiting 20 minutes for our grits to cook - unless you get your grits from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans. Where these magic grits?

 

If the truth corresponds to an external reality, then tell me which of the two statements is true. Which of the two expressed thoughts resolves to an external truth reality object in the universe?

 

I think you are misapplying the axiom. The axiom does not determine if one of the two statements is true. The axiom is about the larger "or-statement" itself.

Let's take the statements one at a time.

 

Case A) There will be intelligent life found in the universe.

That statement is neither true nor false as it can never be proven. If it cannot be proven it can only be believed. There is no external reality that proves this claim.

 

Case B) There will not be intelligent life found in the universe.

That statement is neither true nor false as it can ever be proven. Again, without proof it can only be believed. There is not external reality that proves this claim.

 

The "truth" of an axiom is in the mind - never in external reality. The only truth is the axiomatic truth (believed, not proven) that the "or" makes the combination of the statements a true statement itself. The statement "A Or B" is axiomatically true, but does not prove A or B either true or false. If either A or B could be proven by itself, we wouldn't need the axiom.

 

The Law of the Excluded Middle simply recogizes an existing truth - that one of two possible configurations of the universe must be the case.

 

The Law of the Excluded Middle is an axiom, and it applies to systems of logic (thought) but has no bearing on configurations of the universe. It only expresses what is believed axiomatically to be true. It only applies to thought, not the physical universe.

[Winstonm]

The terms "analytic" and "synthetic" may assist you. Or, of course, they may not.

I sincerely appreiciate the input. It was good to read about another distinction. I'm not sure how it fits the squabble unless we are talking about intelligent unmarried Martian bachelors, though. :D

[dburn]

I state here without proof that:

 

To every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulae there correspond recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg (κ) (where v is the free variable of r).

 

Now, would this be true if there were no intelligent life in the Universe?

[Winstonm]

I state here without proof that:

 

To every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulae there correspond recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg (κ) (where v is the free variable of r).

 

Now, would this be true if there were no intelligent life in the Universe?

Only if we are the last two humans on Earth and we are both dead. :D

[dburn]

One may then summarize the Winstonian position as:

 

"X is true" iff (sic - look it up) there is someone who believes X, and iff it can be shown to others who may initially disbelieve (or be agnostic about) X that a contradiction follows from the assumption that not-X; while

 

"X is the case" iff physical (or "empirical") phenomena are incompatible with X not being the case.

 

That is: X may be the case without X being true (the nature of X may be such that no one has any grounds on which to base a belief or a disbelief in X); also, X may be true without X being the case (there is no reason to suppose that merely because everyone believes X, they must necessarily be correct). In short, nothing is "true" unless there is someone to whom it is "true".

 

This position is characterized by different philosophers in different ways; laymen who may have wandered in are encouraged to research such various topics as Bishop Berkeley, tabula rasa, fallibilism, and the German Talmudists of the eighteenth century. The last of these will direct you to the "wrong" Isaiah Berlin, and your assignment will be to show why he was wrong or - alternatively if you believe in the Excluded Middle, but simultaneously if you do not - why he may have been right.

[Lobowolf]

If the truth corresponds to an external reality, then tell me which of the two statements is true. Which of the two expressed thoughts resolves to an external truth reality object in the universe?

 

I think you are misapplying the axiom. The axiom does not determine if one of the two statements is true. The axiom is about the larger "or-statement" itself.

Let's take the statements one at a time.

 

Case A) There will be intelligent life found in the universe.

That statement is neither true nor false as it can never be proven. If it cannot be proven it can only be believed. There is no external reality that proves this claim.

 

Case :D There will not be intelligent life found in the universe.

That statement is neither true nor false as it can ever be proven. Again, without proof it can only be believed. There is not external reality that proves this claim.

 

The "truth" of an axiom is in the mind - never in external reality. The only truth is the axiomatic truth (believed, not proven) that the "or" makes the combination of the statements a true statement itself. The statement "A Or B" is axiomatically true, but does not prove A or B either true or false. If either A or B could be proven by itself, we wouldn't need the axiom.

 

The Law of the Excluded Middle simply recogizes an existing truth - that one of two possible configurations of the universe must be the case.

 

The Law of the Excluded Middle is an axiom, and it applies to systems of logic (thought) but has no bearing on configurations of the universe. It only expresses what is believed axiomatically to be true. It only applies to thought, not the physical universe.

Again, I think you conflate "truth" with "knowledge." I don't "know" which is true, and (but) my lack of knowledge has no bearing on the fact that one is true. The truth is not axiomatic, or rooted in logic; it is inherent in the universe. The Law of the Excluded Middle doesn't "have a bearing on configuration of the universe," but it DOES reflect an external reality.

 

If I pull a card from a deck, it is either true that the card I pulled was the 7 of spades, or it is true that it was not the 7 of spades, regardless of whether I turn it face up or burn it before anyone sees it. If I burn it without looking, the fact that neither of us can say for certainly which case was true doesn't render both of them untrue.

[Winstonm]

The truth is not axiomatic, or rooted in logic; it is inherent in the universe.

 

Well, I can certainly understand and agree that it can "seem to be the case" that truth is absolute - but it simply cannot be.

 

Regardless of how we define it, truth does not resolve to any object in the universe. Truth is only an idea, thought, concept. Concepts do not exist outside the mind. Truth, to exist, requires the workings of a biological brain. Truth (a concept only) cannot be eternal because no biological brain (the engine that creates concepts) exists that is eternal.

 

On the other hand, the universe is fact, concrete, actual. The universe exists regardless of thought.

 

I think you conflate knowledge with fact. B)

 

You wrote a concept about a deck of cards and a card drawn from that deck that could be the 7 of spades. You then showed your concept to be true by the axiom of the LEM that it either was or was not the 7 of spades. That entire exchange was in written language that was resolved in the minds of the writer and reader - it was conveyed as thought. Of course it would appear true by axiom that the card either was or was not the 7 of spades - that's what axioms do.

 

Fact uses a real deck of cards that is examined before and after the card is removed - and the card itself is turned face up to detemine what card it is.

 

Once we know the facts about the deck and what card was removed, we don't need the Law of Excluded Middle to tell us that it either was or was not the spade 7. We "know" it was the 8 of hearts.

[Winstonm]

One may then summarize the Winstonian position as: while "X is the case" iff physical (or "empirical") phenomena are incompatible with X not being the case.

 

I don't think you are quite correct - or I have expressed it incorrectly. I am simply stating that empirical and conceptual are unrelated. It is fine if something is empirical fact and a concept agrees with that fact. All I am saying is that a concept may disagree with fact and still be logically true. (again, this may all boil down to definitions - to me, a sound argument is true simply because it is not false. That does not make it "true" in the sense that it conforms to known physical facts.)

 

The word "apple" is a concept - in a language. This concept can be resolved to an object in the universe hanging from a tree - that is the nature of language. The concept of the Law of Identity does not resolve to an object in the universe, and therefore it reamains a concept only, and the concept that apple (is) apple does not apply to the physical object but to the conceptual word "apple".

 

When we have two apples sitting side by side in front of us, we do not need the Law of Identity to tell us that both objects are the same. It is only when we transform fact into thought that we need axiomatic proof.

 

As long as I can say it is possible that a flying wingless bird exists, then...

I can say it is possibly necessarily the case that a wingless bird that flies exists, and....

Logically, that wingless birds exist.

 

Of course, the premise is a belief system, and real world experience has shown that believing in wingless flying birds is a pretty stupid belief system; however, if you chose to believe the premise, then real world bird facts have no bearing on the axiomatic proof that the flying wingless bird exists.

[Winstonm]

Btw, this from Wikipedia kind of puts this thread into perspective:

 

The term [truth] has no single definition yet about which over fifty percent of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated.

 

No doubt we will be able to finally settle this issue in the watercooler. :lol: Truth is, you either shouldn't have bid 6 spades or you should have played it better.

[luke warm]

Again, I think you conflate "truth" with "knowledge."

i believe this is the cause of all the misunderstandings up to now... when defining the terms is as exhausting a process as this thread seems to have made it, it's easy to see why others lose interest... when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'... winston seems to prefer defining the term to mean 'that which is thought to conform to fact or actuality'

 

he also seems fond of the word 'empirical' and uses it when speaking of truth, as if truth itself must of necessity be determined empirically... this is not the case... it's true (a small joke) that much of our knowledge is gained empirically, and it's true (more or less and as kant has said) that our knowledge comes from our experience, but from those it does not follow that all knowledge comes from experience... however, i do not see (unless winston's definition is used) how those things can apply to truth... so when he speaks of a priori or a posteriori "truth" he actually means knowledge (in the sense that his arguments are better suited for a discussion of the one term rather than the other)...

 

he makes this, to me, incredible statement: "Well, I can certainly understand and agree that it can "seem to be the case" that truth is absolute - but it simply cannot be" and he appears unable to grasp the contradiction in what he has just said... is that quote itself absolutely true? how about the following statement, is it absolutely true: something exists... for that statement not to be absolutely true, one would have to argue that something exists in perception only and not in actuality... this is nonsensical

Once we know the facts about the deck and what card was removed, we don't need the Law of Excluded Middle to tell us that it either was or was not the spade 7. We "know" it was the 8 of hearts.

so you have empirically proven the truth of what lobo said? no winston, what you've done is prove *to your satisfaction* the truth of what he said - you did not prove it true empirically... it was true or false beforehand... your knowledge of its truth might have been gained experientially, not the truth itself

[hrothgar]

If I pull a card from a deck, it is either true that the card I pulled was the 7 of spades, or it is true that it was not the 7 of spades, regardless of whether I turn it face up or burn it before anyone sees it. If I burn it without looking, the fact that neither of us can say for certainly which case was true doesn't render both of them untrue.

For what its worth, here's another way to skin the cat...

 

http://www.pedrotytgat.be/wiskunde/statist...ch_to_stats.pdf

[Winstonm]

i believe this is the cause of all the misunderstandings up to now... when defining the terms is as exhausting a process as this thread seems to have made it, it's easy to see why others lose interest... when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'... winston seems to prefer defining the term to mean 'that which is thought to conform to fact or actuality'

 

I understand you are well-studied in this area - but I truly wonder sometimes about your basic comprehension skills - seriously. I very plainly showed by using the example of the wingless flying bird that a logical proof, i.e., truth (a concept) has nothing to do with fact or actuality.

 

I also find it quite odd that someone with training in logic would use an appeal to belief and and appeal to common practice to justify your definition of truth.

"when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'"

 

See, when I gave the word a definition I also gave a reasoning for that definition - that truth cannot resolve to an object in the universe therefore it is a concept.

 

Your reasoning for your definition seems to be of the, Yeah, well everyone knows the Earth is the center of the universe -type.

 

I guess we can leave it to the interlocutor to determine which definition is better reasoned.

 

he also seems fond of the word 'empirical' and uses it when speaking of truth, as if truth itself must of necessity be determined empirically...

 

Totally backwards from what I said if you bothered to read what I posted earlier to Lobowolf about how I previously had misapplied terms. One more time with current definitions to make certain you know what I mean and I know what you mean. Truth=proved by logic. Fact=empirical evidence.

 

Or to state it axiomatically, truth exists as a physical object in the universe or truth does not exist as a physical object in the universe.

 

And that is a true statement. :P

[luke warm]

i believe this is the cause of all the misunderstandings up to now... when defining the terms is as exhausting a process as this thread seems to have made it, it's easy to see why others lose interest... when most people think of or use the word truth they mean 'that which conforms to fact or actuality'... winston seems to prefer defining the term to mean 'that which is thought to conform to fact or actuality'

 

I understand you are well-studied in this area - but I truly wonder sometimes about your basic comprehension skills - seriously. I very plainly showed by using the example of the wingless flying bird that a logical proof, i.e., truth (a concept) has nothing to do with fact or actuality.

 

he also seems fond of the word 'empirical' and uses it when speaking of truth, as if truth itself must of necessity be determined empirically...

 

Totally backwards from what I said if you bothered to read what I posted earlier to Lobowolf. One more time to make certain you know what I mean and I know what you mean. Truth=logical proof. Fact=empirical evidence.

winston, i know what you wrote and (your opinion of my comprehension skills notwithstanding) i understood it... you here simply say again that which you've said all along... a truth is not defined as, nor is it of necessity shown by, a logical fact... this is where you keep missing the mark... this can be seen in the discussion above where you made the statement that absolute, or universal, truth does not exist... that is simply not the case, the very stating of the assertion shows it to be in error

 

if it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, and if truth is defined as logical proof, then logically prove it...

[Winstonm]

If I pull a card from a deck, it is either true that the card I pulled was the 7 of spades, or it is true that it was not the 7 of spades, regardless of whether I turn it face up or burn it before anyone sees it.  If I burn it without looking, the fact that neither of us can say for certainly which case was true doesn't render both of them untrue.

For what its worth, here's another way to skin the cat...

 

http://www.pedrotytgat.be/wiskunde/statist...ch_to_stats.pdf

Please do not confuse us with intelligent observation. We are quite content to slop around in our respective ignorance. :P

[Winstonm]

if it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist

 

IMO you are resorting to a false (i.e. unproven) claim by restating the claim of "absolute" truth. Regardless, it is appreciated that you show a specific example of how you came to your conclusions about what I wrote - certainly makes it easier to discuss.

 

this can be seen in the discussion above where you made the statement that absolute, or universal, truth does not exist... that is simply not the case

 

O.K. Fair enough. Here is my deal. I will give my case why absolute truth cannot exist. After which, you must give your case as to why absollute truth does exist.

 

I'll start.

 

Any claim of absolute truth is a claim of truth that is “true for every possible circumstance". It certainly is possible that at some point in time language did not exist, that logic or the word “truth” did not exist, or that a mind did not exist. Prior to humans existing, it is a possible that no truths existed at all. We also have no idea whether any claim will remain true into the future - eternally - which is a necessity for "every possible circumstance".

 

So much for absolutes.

 

The phrase "absolute truth" is self-refuting because there is nothing which can be proven to have always been eternally true, and will continue to be eternally true.

Truth is a concept and thus dependent on cognition.

 

Or we could use your definition that truth is whatever the "group" or "common definition" says it is. Perhaps we could use this appeal to common practice to prove that future truth will be the same as today's truth but it may be difficult to round up a consensus of opinion from the population of the year 5049.

 

Let's take your statement: "it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist"

 

1. The phrase "it is an absolute truth" declares itself as an “absolute statement”.

 

2. But in order for that statement to have a meaning of absolute in any “absolute sense” in reality, it must be true for all possible circumstances.

 

3. As shown above, there are possible circumstances where truth could not have existed - before minds or humans were on this planet - or where the continuity cannot be determined - into the future. So truth cannot possibly be absolute.

 

Therefore your statement is false and does not denote a truth that is absolute.

 

Let's take the last part of the statement: absolute truth does not exist.

 

This is a proven as shown above that it is a possible circumstance that truth has not always existed and may not continue to exist unchanged into the future, both of which would be required for it to be absolute.

 

Therefore, the second part of the statement - absolute truth does not exist - does not denote an absolute statment. It is a propositional statement that is proven true.

 

So to put it all together and we show this about your entire statement:

"[if] it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist"

 

Part 1: it is an absolute truth - No. It is shown that absolute truth is impossible.

Part 2: absolute truth does not exist - Yes. It is a propositional statement that is proven true.

[mike777]

One viewpoint.

 

There is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of apprecitating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.

------------

 

"Certain revisions in response to the evidence are reasonable; others pathological."

Thomas Nagel

[mike777]

Without delving too deeply, belief can be said to have three aspects essential to it.

 

Any belief must have a propositional context; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justified or unjustified, rational or irrational.

 

 

----------------------

 

 

A propositional content is built up out of concepts. It specifies a truth condition-how the world would have to be if the belief is to be true.

 

 

-------------------------

 

So if we say that belief is true, then it looks as though the corresponding fact has to obtain for everyone, whether they are inclined to believe it or not- it does not vary from person to person or community to community. (universal fact).

 

It's not merely that it looks to be universal, it also looks to be completely "mind-independent"; it would have obtained even if human beings had never existed.

 

-------------

 

If a belief is to count as knowledge, it must not only be justified, it must also be true.

[Winstonm]

One viewpoint.

There is a way things are that is independent of human opinion,

 

Certainly, as human opinion does not alter the physical world.

 

 

we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of apprecitating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective

 

Belief is a good word, a fine word, and there is nothing wrong with admitting belief. But why should "belief" be "binding"?

 

If the belief is binding, then it is not possible to alter one's belief because one is bound to that belief. In order to bind by belief, it is necessary to eliminate all new facts that are contrary to that belief and create scenarios that illustrate how the belief is no longer simply belief but an unchallengeable fact.

 

And, of course, if you are not capable of understanding the truth of binding belief then you are simply not capable of understanding how wrong you are.

 

This all has a distinctly familiiar flavor.....