on truth

[mike777]

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.....

 

My entire post is about those who may fear knowledge.

 

no...reread what I said you misunderstand.

 

A belief is a particular kind of mental state. I define it, then you mangle it ...:P

 

 

If you fear knowledge, if you fear to be bound by a belief in knowledge, ok.

[Winstonm]

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.

 

Yes. Yes. No.

 

The Unforgiven Refutation:

Little Bill: But I believed I would build a house.

Will: Believin's got nothin' to do with it.

 

Belief is acceptance without proof. Logical proof resolves the dichotomy of true or false. If it is true, it does not have to be believed; if it is believed, then it cannot be true.

 

So sayeth the Law of Excluded Middle.

[Winstonm]

My entire      post is about those who may fear knowledge.

 

no...reread what I said you misunderstand.

 

A belief is a particular kind of mental state. I define it, then you mangle it ...:P

 

 

If you fear knowledge, if you fear to be bound by a belief in knowledge, ok  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.  (emphasis added)

 

That is just the point - belief is that which cannot be assessed as true or false. If it can be assessed as true or false it does not have to be believed. It is proven true or false.

 

Ontological arguments only attempt to show a justification for belief - reason cannot prove existence.

[mike777]

Your logic falls apart....to claim something is a true assertion is not to say it is proven or even ifyou believe that something is true or is fact that everyone else does.

 

You confuse a true assertion with the word proven.

 

You refuse to see that if something is true assertion or false assertion is in fact a belief.

 

I may believe in a factwhile others dont.

 

So if we say that the belief is true then it looks as thought the correspoinding fact has to obtain for everyone, whether they are inclined or not.

 

 

 

---------

 

Again I posit that a belief must be true assertion and justified..........these are not the same thing.....you seem to think they are.

 

to be put this another way an assertion may be assessed as true but not be justified or rational.

 

 

Example.....our early ancesters thought that they knew the earth was flat but they were wrong. Although their belief about the earth was justified it was not true.

 

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

[luke warm]

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".

this entire paragraph is nothing more than a hodgepodge of assertions with no attempt at argument... for example, you say "Any claim of absolute truth is a claim of truth that is “true for every possible circumstance"."... you appear to be saying that absolute truth can exist, just not in every possible circumstance... is that your stance? if it is, it will require something more than your asserting of it

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.

do you claim that the above sentence is absolutely true?

Truth is a concept and thus dependent on cognition.

is that statement absolutely true?

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.

as what was shown above? you have shown nothing, except perhaps in your own mind where words have meanings assigned by you... and my statement was taken out of context (again) - it was meant to show that *your* statement about absolute truth was stated by you as itself an absolute truth... is this statement absolutely true? something exists

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.

i honestly feel like i'm in some bizzaro world in which whatever winston asserts to be the case is in fact the case... how is anything "as shown above" in any way a proof of anything?

 

as i said in my earlier post, if (as you say) it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, and if truth is defined (again, as you say) as logical proof, then logically prove it

[mike777]

NOt sure about absolute truth but I dont think we should fear that we indeed can explain what we believe by appeal to our epistemic reasons alone.

 

I discussed "universal" facts above.

 

 

Again belief is a particular kind of mental state. One that can be anaylzed in terms of the three stated aspects.

 

A belief that is objectively reasonable and binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.

 

Do not be afraid to be bound by a belief in Knowledge. ;)

[mike777]

The conceptual cannot prove existence - you cannot reason a cumquat salad onto my plate.

And I'm pretty sure nobody would try. But if all conscious being perished after it were placed on your plate, it will still be true that it's there.

 

The earth is flat a great example, btw. Before the proof arrived, it was absolutely true that the world was in fact non-flat. The fact that some people believe to be true some unproven things that are false does not imply that no unproven things are true.

 

 

 

I do strongly agree that it was justified or rational to believe in a flat earth.

 

 

 

"Truth can only be attributed to judgments, which are expressed as propositions that note the degree, or lack, of agreement between two or more ideas. Arguments are made up of propositions. Arguments are never "true" or "false." The propositions making up the argument may be "true" or "false," but not the argument itself. An argument is either"

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

[PassedOut]

I do strongly agree that it was justified or rational to believe in a flat earth.

And, in fact, the bible depicts god creating a flat earth, according to the common understanding of the time. When that later proved to be wrong, theologians had some explaining to do.

[blackshoe]

It was only after the Númenoreans violated the edict of the Valar and sailed West attempting to reach Valinor that Erú recast Arda into a globe (and incidentally removed Valinor from the reach of most mortals).

[Winstonm]

Mike,

 

That's why these sorts of discussions always collapse into arcane discussion about terms and their meanings.

 

I never used the term "true assertion". You use that term , but asserting true or false does not make a claim either true or false. An argument of assertion is simply a claim that something is as you say it is - without bothering to offer a proof. It is you who have inserted the word "assertion" into the discussion. You are building a straw man. True or false is resolved.

 

You  confuse a  true assertion with  the word proven.

 

No, I do not confuse "assertion" with proof. I equate proven with true (or false). By proven I mean a priori proof, as there is no way to prove a concept outside the realm of thought and reason. Outside of thought and reason is the physical universe, and that is the domain of fact, not truth.

 

Concept, thought, proof, logic, truth - these all are ideas only - every one of them exists only in the mind.

 

You refuse to see that if something is true assertion or false assertion  is in fact a belief.

 

No, that is exactly what I AM saying - assertions are unproven and therefore can only BE belief.

 

I may believe in a fact while others dont.

Facts are conditions of the physical world, a posteriori. Regardless of whether or not the fact is believed, it retains its properties in the physical world.

 

I have used this before, but it once again applies - even when all of mankind "believed" that the Earth was the center of the universe, that belief did not alter the physical fact that the Earth orbited the sun.

 

What you seem to want to do is conflate a priori (reason/concepts) with a posteriori (experience/facts). These are indeed seperate worlds and do not share a common boundary. The universe cares not one whit what any one of us thinks, dreams up, or believes. The universe responds only to what is real, facts, those aspects that make up the physical world.

 

Example.....our early ancesters thought that they knew the earth was flat but they were wrong. Although their belief about the earth was justified it was not true.

 

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

 

Once again we are bumping straight into definition of terms: please define knowledge. Is it of the mind or is it a physical object? If it exists, what is the Length, Width, Height of knowledge? Where in the universe does the object we call knowledge exsit?

 

If it does not resolve to an object in the universe, then it must be a concept only. Please define the concept: knowledge.

 

As to our what our ancestors knew about the earth, technically they produced a hypothesis based on observation that the world was flat. That hypothesis was accepted until eventual discovery falsified the claim.

 

It was only belief in the sense that during that time period there was no way to establish the physical acts concerning the claim. It is really more accurate to state that a flat earth was thought to be the case. Belief can only be held in the mind about those things which cannot be shown to be either true or false. When it was shown that earth was not flat, that established a fact. That fact did not alter belief - it altered our understanding of the natural world.

 

Perhaps that is what you mean by the word knowledge - to my thinking shown above, this finding did not change belief and had nothing to do with truth but only falsified a held position about the nature of the shape of the earth.

 

This may seem like nitpicking, but I thought the idea of reason was to increase precision of thought and eliminate bias as much as possible.

[Lobowolf]

FWIW, I'll go back to the original (erased) phrase with which Winston disagreed. True = factual = corresponds with external reality. Regardless of any actual or theoretically possible verification. "Proven truth" or "proven fact" = knowledge, which is self-explanatory and non-redundant.

[Lobowolf]

Outside of thought and reason is the physical universe, and that is the domain of fact, not truth.

This puts as fine a point on the discussion as we've seen. I'm not sure why you segregate "truth" and "fact." Before you ask why I don't, it's because 1) I think it's the common usage, and 2) it's consistent with the (at least one) dictionary -

 

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth (www.dictionary.com, taken from Random House, emphasis added).

 

I understand the desire to separate the philosophical from the material, but that was done simply enough 50 posts ago, when LukeWarm reference "proven facts," distinguishing between the virtual synonyms wasn't necessary.

[Winstonm]

Outside of thought and reason is the physical universe, and that is the domain of fact, not truth.

This puts as fine a point on the discussion as we've seen. I'm not sure why you segregate "truth" and "fact." Before you ask why I don't, it's because 1) I think it's the common usage, and 2) it's consistent with the (at least one) dictionary -

 

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth (www.dictionary.com, taken from Random House, emphasis added).

 

I understand the desire to separate the philosophical from the material, but that was done simply enough 50 posts ago, when LukeWarm reference "proven facts," distinguishing between the virtual synonyms wasn't necessary.

This is the reason I believe so often we get bogged down - that and the reality that ontological arguments are difficult to refute.

 

I confess that my understanding of terms may be off to some degree on these matters. I apologize for that lack of training. I do not try to make it difficult on purpose, but it is hard to be succinct without crisp definitions. A major reason I have to be so precise (like seperating truth/fact) is so I won't get lost in trying to explain my own reasoning - and it is difficult enough even then.

 

A further note on where a lot of this began: axiom = unproven truth. All I am saying is that if we write down on a piece of paper: all X's are brown or not all X's are brown, that is a true statement regardless of any correspondence with the physical world. It is true because it is consistent with an axiom used to construct the system of classical logic we mostly use. The LEM shows that the statement is true. If one or another of the statements happens also to conform to the physical world, that is coincidental and has no bearing on the axiomatic proof of truth for the entire statement. The physical world really has nothing to do with it.

 

X's don't even have to exist in the physical world for the statement to be logically true. True and false are thoughts only and as such are not dependent upon the phyical world for their resolution - the dichotomy of true or false is proved by reason. One method of reasoned proof is axiomatic consistency.

 

This may really be splitting hairs, I know, but....it's the best I can do for now and I've given myself a raging headache to boot. :angry:

[Winstonm]

as i said in my earlier post, if (as you say) it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, and if truth is defined (again, as you say) as logical proof, then logically prove it

 

Let's be clear - I said that absolute truth does not exist. I did not make any claim that my statement WAS an absolute truth. That claim was and still is YOURS.

 

Indeed, it is the height of folly to claim no absolute truth exists and then state that claim as absolute truth.

 

I offer this for my position that no absolute truth exists.

 

For anything to be absolute it must necessarily be the case in all possible circumstances.

As truth cannot resolve to an object in the universe, it must be concept and as such it is possible that the concept of truth did not exist prior to the existence of biological brains.

All possible circumstances includes all of eternal past and all of eternal future, so it is impossible for biological brains to have knowledge of all circumstances of eternal past and eternal future.

If it is possible that truth is not necessarily the case in all possible cicumstances, then it is impossible for truth to be asbolute.

Therefore, truth is not absolute.

 

Best I can do on short order.

[mike777]

Mike,

 

That's why these sorts of discussions always collapse into arcane discussion about terms and their meanings.

 

I never used the term "true assertion".  You use that term , but asserting true or false does not make a claim either true or false.  An argument of assertion is simply a claim that something is as you say it is - without bothering to offer a proof.  It is you who have inserted the word "assertion" into the discussion.  You are building a straw man.  True or false is resolved.

 

You  confuse a  true assertion with  the word proven.

 

No, I do not confuse "assertion" with proof. I equate proven with true (or false). By proven I mean a priori proof, as there is no way to prove a concept outside the realm of thought and reason. Outside of thought and reason is the physical universe, and that is the domain of fact, not truth.

 

Concept, thought, proof, logic, truth - these all are ideas only - every one of them exists only in the mind.

 

You refuse to see that if something is true assertion or false assertion  is in fact a belief.

 

No, that is exactly what I AM saying - assertions are unproven and therefore can only BE belief.

 

I may believe in a fact while others dont.

Facts are conditions of the physical world, a posteriori. Regardless of whether or not the fact is believed, it retains its properties in the physical world.

 

I have used this before, but it once again applies - even when all of mankind "believed" that the Earth was the center of the universe, that belief did not alter the physical fact that the Earth orbited the sun.

 

What you seem to want to do is conflate a priori (reason/concepts) with a posteriori (experience/facts). These are indeed seperate worlds and do not share a common boundary. The universe cares not one whit what any one of us thinks, dreams up, or believes. The universe responds only to what is real, facts, those aspects that make up the physical world.

 

Example.....our early ancesters thought that they knew the earth was flat but they were wrong. Although their belief about the earth was justified it was not true.

 

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

 

Once again we are bumping straight into definition of terms: please define knowledge. Is it of the mind or is it a physical object? If it exists, what is the Length, Width, Height of knowledge? Where in the universe does the object we call knowledge exsit?

 

If it does not resolve to an object in the universe, then it must be a concept only. Please define the concept: knowledge.

 

As to our what our ancestors knew about the earth, technically they produced a hypothesis based on observation that the world was flat. That hypothesis was accepted until eventual discovery falsified the claim.

 

It was only belief in the sense that during that time period there was no way to establish the physical acts concerning the claim. It is really more accurate to state that a flat earth was thought to be the case. Belief can only be held in the mind about those things which cannot be shown to be either true or false. When it was shown that earth was not flat, that established a fact. That fact did not alter belief - it altered our understanding of the natural world.

 

Perhaps that is what you mean by the word knowledge - to my thinking shown above, this finding did not change belief and had nothing to do with truth but only falsified a held position about the nature of the shape of the earth.

 

This may seem like nitpicking, but I thought the idea of reason was to increase precision of thought and eliminate bias as much as possible.

again proven does not mean the same as true....that is where you go wrong

 

 

True does not equal proven...

 

 

I am not sure how else I can keep saying this......YOu cannot prove something is true by logic.

 

 

Let me go out on a limb and say.....something can be true but not valid....

 

You think true means valid.

 

 

I think that is where the confusion is.

 

 

Something is true by belief....judgement..........

 

I get the impression you are hung up on the word belief.

 

or the word...true.....or other words.

[mike777]

"Therefore, truth is not absolute.

 

Best I can do on short order. "

 

 

ok then what is truth.....

 

 

I prefer to use the word Knowledge

 

 

 

My viewpoint is that knowledge need not be to depend on someones cultural or social perspective.

 

 

 

Flat earth was not true but it was justified in its time......

 

 

Now see Edmund Gettier "Is Justified True belief Knowledge" 1963.

[mike777]

lets discuss "facts"

 

 

 

 

I put forth:

 

 

 

Facts about what belief would be justified by a given piece of evidence are facts that must be thought of as absolute, and not as varying from social context to social context.

 

Evidence is fallible, it is entirely consistent with a belief's falsity that is is explainable through evidential causes. (flat earth)

 

 

However ever since Descartes first formulation philosophers have been persuaded that at least some propositions are self-evident.

 

I skip a whole lot but I claim that we can explain belief by appeal to our expistemic reasons alone.

[luke warm]

That's why these sorts of discussions always collapse into arcane discussion about terms and their meanings.

any demand that words have meanings and that people who discuss things must have exact understandings of those meanings is not arcane, it is necessary

You  confuse a  true assertion with  the word proven.

No, I do not confuse "assertion" with proof. I equate proven with true (or false).

and you are wrong to do so... the truth is not contingent... that is as simple as i can put it

FWIW, I'll go back to the original (erased) phrase with which Winston disagreed.  True = factual = corresponds with external reality.  Regardless of any actual or theoretically possible verification.  "Proven truth" or "proven fact" = knowledge, which is self-explanatory and non-redundant.

exactly right

as i said in my earlier post, if (as you say) it is an absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, and if truth is defined (again, as you say) as logical proof, then logically prove it

Indeed, it is the height of folly to claim no absolute truth exists and then state that claim as absolute truth.

it's hard for me to believe that you still don't understand what you are saying... don't you see that the claim itself is a claim of absolute truth? you also said

Truth is a concept and thus dependent on cognition

now tell us all - is that statement absolutely true or is it not? all i have to do to disprove (to the satisfaction of most people) your assertion is to show one instance where it is wrong... if you'll answer that question i believe we'll be done

 

but just in case it doesn't do the job, i state as an absolute truth this - something exists... do you disagree?

Now see Edmund Gettier "Is Justified True belief Knowledge"  1963.

excellent book, as are plantinga's works which delve much deeper

[PassedOut]

Let me go  out on a limb and say.....something can be true but not valid....

Not sure exactly what you are saying here. Can you give a real-life example of what you mean?

[Winstonm]

I notice you do not offer any argument for absolute truth.

However, I am unafraid and will try one last time and then I retire.

 

For anything to be absolute, it must have existed and remained constant for all time, not only past time but into all of future time, as well.

 

It can be agreed that the word truth cannot be resolved to any known object in the universe.

 

If truth is not an object in the universe, then it is a concept, meaning truth exists only in the realm of thought.

 

Now I guess it is possible that truth floats around in the universe as some kind of invisible un-matter that eventually passes somehow into a biological brain in order to be known, but that is not as likely as what our experience tells us, and that is biological brains create thought.

 

If biological brains create thought and concepts, and truth is concept, it then follows that truth is created by biological brains.

 

If no biological brain existed for all time, then truth has not existed for all time and therefore truth cannot be absolute.

 

I have just shown you a logical argument that there can be no truth that is absolute, so my statement is not claimed as an absolute as you state, but I only claim it is proven.

 

True = factual = corresponds with external reality.

 

exactly right

 

You say that the Law of Excluded Middle is true, do you not? If so, then this statement must be true: All winged fairies are blue or not all winged fairies are blue.

 

How "exactly right" is it that this truthful statement corresponds to external reality?

 

 

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming. :)

 

Hold on - I almost missed it - luke warm made a statement where we could be "done". Whoo Hoo! How did it go?

 

now tell us all - is that statement absolutely true or is it not? ....if you'll answer that question i believe we'll be done

 

Not. True/False=Reason. Absolute=your belief

[luke warm]

I notice you do not offer any argument for absolute truth. However, I am unafraid and will try one last time and then I retire.

 

For anything to be absolute, it must have existed and remained constant for all time, not only past time but into all of future time, as well.

where do you get off making statements like this? who says the above, other than you, and what arguments can be made for it? and btw, i gave an example of an absolute truth - something exists - that is my argument, that and the fact that your statements themselves are either absolutely true or they are not... if not, then they are falsehoods... of course if you are allowed, and it appears you are in your bizzaro world, to make statements as the mood strikes you, what can be said?

It can be agreed that the word truth cannot be resolved to any known object in the universe.

another idiotic statement... "it can be agreed" only counts if agreeing with yourself is all that is required

If truth is not an object in the universe, then it is a concept, meaning truth exists only in the realm of thought.

is "something" an object in the universe?

Now I guess it is possible that truth floats around in the universe as some kind of invisible un-matter that eventually passes somehow into a biological brain in order to be known, but that is not as likely as what our experience tells us, and that is biological brains create thought.

 

If biological brains create thought and concepts, and truth is concept, it then follows that truth is created by biological brains.

 

If no biological brain existed for all time, then truth has not existed for all time and therefore truth cannot be absolute.

 

I have just shown you a logical argument that there can be no truth that is absolute, so my statement is not claimed as an absolute as you state, but I only claim it is proven.

wow... i now see that i, and probably others, have given you more credit than perhaps we should have... what you have (attempted) to do is form a conditional argument while just leaving the premises dangling... by your "logic" this is "proven"

 

1. if aunts have penises and uncles have vaginas, it then follows that my aunt is my uncle and my uncle is my aunt

2. if neither aunts nor uncles have existed for all time then neither have penises or vaginas

therefore neither aunts or uncles exist

True = factual = corresponds with external reality.

 

exactly right

You say that the Law of Excluded Middle is true, do you not? If so, then this statement must be true: All winged fairies are blue or not all winged fairies are blue.

you are again confused, i think... you are confusing the *fact* that A v ~A presupposes the truth of A or ~A... an elemental mistake

Hold on - I almost missed it - luke warm made a statement where we could be "done".  Whoo Hoo!  How did it go?

now tell us all - is that statement [the statement, made by winston, was - "Truth is a concept and thus dependent on cognition"] absolutely true or is it not? ....if you'll answer that question i believe we'll be done

Not. True/False=Reason. Absolute=your belief

like so many of your arguments, this one is internally inconsistent to the point that it is absurd... it's as if you speak the same language as others but the words are arranged in ways only you can fathom... in any event, since you affirm that your statement was not true, you make our case

[Winstonm]

like so many of your arguments, this one is internally inconsistent to the point that it is absurd... it's as if you speak the same language as others but the words are arranged in ways only you can fathom... in any event, since you affirm that your statement was not true, you make our case

 

Well, it's good to know that THAT is settled. Absolutely. :)

 

But I will leave it to others who might care which of us has been more honest in our attempts to communicate or restate positions. And just to be fair, I will post my actual reply to your question and then your restatement of what I said. (Emphasis added.)

 

now tell us all - is that statement absolutely true or is it not?

Not.

you affirm that your statement was not true

 

I guess the word "absolutely" that was critical to your question mysteriously disappeared when it couldn't resolve to your belief shown in your restatement of my answer.

 

You seem to like to slip the qualifier "absolute" in and out at your whim - which, of course, completely alters meanings - is it accidental or simply your assertion that truth=absolute truth?

[Winstonm]

1. if aunts have penises and uncles have vaginas, it then follows that my aunt is my uncle and my uncle is my aunt

 

I think this is only proven true in Louisianna and some parts of West Virginia. ;)

 

2. if neither aunts nor uncles have existed for all time then neither have penises or vaginas therefore neither aunts or uncles exist

 

I believe the correct conclusion is: "therefore anything that comes from Lousianna or some parts of West Virginia is a dickheaded girly-boy." :)

 

But we should check with Pastor Plantinga to be sure. ;)

[luke warm]

But I will leave it to others who might care which of us has been more honest in our attempts to communicate or restate positions.

i think they've mostly already spoken

And just to be fair, I will post my actual reply to your question and then your restatement of what I said.  (Emphasis added.)

now tell us all - is that statement absolutely true or is it not?

Not.

you affirm that your statement was not true

I guess the word "absolutely" that was critical to your question mysteriously disappeared when it couldn't resolve to your belief shown in your restatement of my answer.

very well, you affirm that your statement was not absolutely true... in what sense, if any, was it true? and in bizzaro world, what do you call a statement that is not true (and especially one not absolutely true)?

I think this is only proven true in Louisianna and some parts of West Virginia.   ;)

 

I believe the correct conclusion is: "therefore anything that comes from Lousianna or some parts of West Virginia is a dickheaded girly-boy."   :)

 

But we should check with Pastor Plantinga to be sure.   ;)

this is more like the kind of argumentation we're used to seeing from you... in any case, it served its purpose - to show the silliness of your (attempted) iff (and it was wise of you, even if a bit sophmoric, to attempt to deflect it)

 

by the way, it's *still* absolutely true that something exists

Let me go  out on a limb and say.....something can be true but not valid....

Not sure exactly what you are saying here. Can you give a real-life example of what you mean?

mike might have examples of his own, but he might mean that an invalid argument, while unsound due to false premises, doesn't have to have a false conclusion...

 

to vote in america you must be 27 years old, or older

my son votes in america

therefore my son is 27 years old, or older

[Winstonm]

This puts as fine a point on the discussion as we've seen. I'm not sure why you segregate "truth" and "fact."

 

Sorry I didn't reply directly to this earlier. I segregate truth from fact in an attempt to keep the parties on track as to whether we are discussing a priori or a posteriori.

 

I understand that truth can be proven either by reason (a priori) or by empirical evidence (a posteriori). I seperate into truth/fact because many try to use an a priori proof of truth as an a posteriori claim of fact. I am only saying that reasoned proof and empirical proof are not the same thing - and I therefore do not accept the premise that a "reasoned" truth is empirical evidence of that truth existing in the physical world.

 

Take the equal sign, for instance =. Those two lines have no meaning in the real world UNTIL we define a meaning for them. The same is true for the sign we use for truth: T-R-U-T-H. That configuation of lines and curves has no meaning whatsoever to the physical world - the sun doesn't read. It only has meaning when we use our brains to define a meaning for the word.

 

We could have defined = to mean oyster and T-R-U-T-H to mean equal. The sun, moon, and stars would not have stopped in their orbits until we got the definitions right.

 

We could conceptually define truth as that which is consistent with reality, but if we did so we would invalidate the very axioms upon which our logic is built. It is 100% axiomatically true that "all wingless fairies are blue, or all wingless fairies are not blue." It is the construction that makes the statement true by axiom. It fits P or not-P. The reality or non-reality of objects within the statement are irrelevant. If truth must be consistent with reality, the wingless fairy statement cannot be true because we know by empirical evidence there are no real world wingless fairies. So if we are to use consistent with reality as our truth definition, we need new axioms to define our new system of logic where truth is not simply a construction of words but is consistent with reality.

 

And that's why I divide truth from fact - it's how my pet blue wingless fairy understands the world to be.