Truth and Belief

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

There could hardly be a more poignant test of truth and belief.

Is the status of a three month old fetus a question of truth or belief, and if so why so?

---

It is both.

Truth: do a DNA test on the fetus to see if it is human DNA.

Belief: Whether or not an human fetus that is forming in the mother's womb has the right to life over the mother's right to choose life or death for the fetus in her womb.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

This is what tends to determine truth and belief.

---

What does? And what does it mean to "determine belief" anyway? Do you, perhaps, mean whether a belief is true? Belief is not the same kind of thing as is truth, as you seem to think. Truth (or falsity) is a property of belief. It is not as if you can say, "that is a truth not a belief". Beliefs can be true, or they can be false.

[perplexity]

A belief by definition is a "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof", i.e. neither true nor false.

To assert that a belief is true or false is to cheat the argument. What is true or false is true or false when agreed to be so and not unless. These are the rules of the game.

Belief is determined because it is not possible to thrive without. Society depends on trust, toward which end belief conforms to suit the purpose.

Heretics are not popular.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A belief by definition is a "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof", i.e. neither true nor false.

To assert that a belief is true or false is to cheat the argument. What is true or false is true or false when agreed to be so and not unless. These are the rules of the game.

Belief is determined because it is not possible to thrive without. Society depends on trust, toward which end belief conforms to suit the purpose.

Heretics are not popular.

It was true even before there were people on Earth that water is H20. It isn't that people agreed that water is H20 that made it true that water is H20, since there were no people then.

So there must be something wrong with those rules of the game.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

@ Isa, Perplexity & Boagie:
Subjectivity has no bearing whatsoever on true or false. Objectivity doesn't either. They are terms for something else entirely. They are most frequently used to deduce reasons for claiming something is true or false however.
The explenation for this lies in the following thought:
I may, in a subjective way (for I am a subject) experience something. Let's say I experience heat. If I would claim that I was experiencing heat another could say that this was a subjective remark for what I experienced as heat the other may experience as a chill. If I would remark that I experienced a wind of 20 degrees (on whichever scale) the other would only be able to agree with me (if indeed the wind was 20 degrees). That I experienced it subjectively as warm has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter: it was 20 degrees. That is an objective truth. We can reach objective truths by abstracting from teh subject (according to Immanuel Kant...and I second his opinion).

We see that there are three distinctions to be made in this matter:
- a subjective (and therefore possible) perception
- a subjective perception which is equal to (and therefore really exists) an objective experience
- an objective (and therefore necessary) experience

I suppose this is not something which can be explained so quickly. If you would like to learn more on this theory just follow the link to Immanuel Kant...or start a topic on him.

Arjen,

The distinction you wish to point out is indeed a wrinkle in the understanding, if it was a fact that it was indeed 20 degrees and that 20 degree is not relative to a subject then it is meaningless, even the finding that the temperature was indeed 20 degree would be a subjectively determined truth, reality is the relations between subject and object, and knowing is very much restricted to the subject, there is no objective true or false, knowing simply is not possiable accept through a subject. Your example simply points out that preception and/or judgement is fallible, but even this discovery must be made on a subjective level. Logic is very much the function of a subject, another way of subjectively knowing, even if it is only about the relations of symbols.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Arjen,

The distinction you wish to point out is indeed a wrinkle in the understanding, if it was a fact that it was indeed 20 degrees and that 20 degree is not relative to a subject then it is meaningless, even the finding that the temperature was indeed 20 degree would be a subjectively determined truth, reality is the relations between subject and object, and knowing is very much restricted to the subject, there is no objective true or false, knowing simply is not possiable accept through a subject. Your example simply points out that preception and/or judgement is fallible, but even this discovery must be made on a subjective level. Logic is very much the function of a subject, another way of subjectively knowing, even if it is only the relations of symbols.

All "subjectively determined truth" seems to mean is that someone or other has to find out whether it is true. Well, of course, how could it be otherwise? But, what it does not mean, however is that the truth is determined by the subject: in the sense that the subject decides what the truth is. He does not, for what the truth is, is independent of what the subject believe, or wishes it to be. So, you are being misled by the ambiguity of your own phrase, "subjectively determined truth".

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

All "subjectively determined truth" seems to mean is that someone or other has to find out whether it is true. Well, of course, how could it be otherwise? But, what it does not mean, however is that the truth is determined by the subject: in the sense that the subject decides what the truth is. He does not, for what the truth is, is independent of what the subject believe, or wishes it to be. So, you are being misled by the ambiguity of your own phrase, "subjectively determined truth".

kennethamy,

No kenethamy that is just the point, subjective knowing is the only possiablity, what else could know anything. True or false are concepts, only subjects form concepts. I am afraid the ambiguity is in your own reasoning. I know what your thinking, if the subject observes the object and discerns that it is black, the blackness belongs to the object, even here truth or falsehood of the fact that it is black is a subjective perception/judgement of an individual/subject. Black being a light frequency, the object is only black relative to the subjects senses. Indeed without a subject there is no perception/judgement, in essence there is no object in the absence of a subject. Can the subject be incorrect, even if he is, it is a subjective error, which only he or another subject could subjectively discern.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

No kenethamy that is just the point, subjective knowing is the only possiablity, what else could know anything. True or false are concepts, only subjects form concepts. I am afraid the ambiguity is in your own reasoning. I know what your thinking, if the subject observes the object and discerns that it is black, the blackness belongs to the object, even here true or falsehood of the fact that it is black is a subjective perception/judgement of an individual/subject. Indeed without a subject there is no perception/judgement, in essence there is no object in the absence of a subject. Can the subject be incorrect, even if he is, it is a subjective error, which only he or another subject could subjectively discern.

Well yes, I agree, only the one who knows (the subject) can be the one who knows. That is a tautology, and accordingly, trivial. But that does not mean that what the subject knows is subjective. In your sense of "subjective", kicking a rock would also be subjective, because when I kick a rock, it is I who kicks the rock, and no one else. Well, that is so, and that is trivially so. But that does not mean that whether I kick the rock is subjective. Whether I kick the rock is as objective as you please. And the same goes for knowing. If I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, then, of course, it is I who knows it, and no one else. But does that mean that whether I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is subjective? Of course not. Whether I know Quito is the capital of Ecuador is not up to me. I may be mistaken about whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Others may mark me down on an objective test because I think I know that Quito is the capital and I am wrong. How can my knowing that Quito is the capital be subjective then?

That I believe I know is subjective. But whether I do know is objective. You are confusing the two.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Well yes, I agree, only the one who knows (the subject) can be the one who knows. That is a tautology, and accordingly, trivial. But that does not mean that what the subject knows is subjective. In your sense of "subjective", kicking a rock would also be subjective, because when I kick a rock, it is I who kicks the rock, and no one else. Well, that is so, and that is trivially so. But that does not mean that whether I kick the rock is subjective. Whether I kick the rock is as objective as you please. And the same goes for knowing. If I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, then, of course, it is I who knows it, and no one else. But does that mean that whether I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is subjective? Of course not. Whether I know Quito is the capital of Ecuador is not up to me. I may be mistaken about whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Others may mark me down on an objective test because I think I know that Quito is the capital and I am wrong. How can my knowing that Quito is the capital be subjective then?

That I believe I know is subjective. But whether I do know is objective. You are confusing the two.

kennethamy,

I repeat, the only means of knowing is subjective, it is subjective because it is the process of a subject/individual. If you are mistaken about the capital of Ecuador it is a subjective error, and you could only find out othewise by subjective process. These things are hardly trival when you have people telling you that the object knows.

"That I believe I know is subjective. But whether I do know is objective. You are confusing the two."Quote

No I am not confused, if you are stating here that subject is object dependent you are quite right, subject and object are mutually dependent. The relation between them is apparent reality. So, yes there has to be something out there in order to have any thought process at all. So, whether you know or don't know in this sense is object dependent. Subject and object are mutually dependent, but subject contributes all meaning. Truth and falsehood are value judgements about a relation, a relation between subject and object, you and your world.

[kennethamy]

If you are mistaken about the capital of Ecuador it is a subjective error, and you could only find out othewise by subjective process

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

If you are mistaken about the capital of Ecuador it is a subjective error, and you could only find out othewise by subjective process



I repeat, the only means of knowing is subjective, it is subjective because it is the process of a subject/individual. If you are mistaken about the capital of Ecuador it is a subjective error, and you could only find out othewise by subjective process. These things are hardly trival when you have people telling you that the object knows.

"That I believe I know is subjective. But whether I do know is objective. You are confusing the two."Quote

No I am not confused, if you are stating here that subject is object dependent you are quite right, subject and object are mutually dependent. The relation between them is apparent reality. So, yes there has to be something out there in order to have any thought process at all. So, whether you know or don't know in this sense is object dependent. Subject and object are mutually dependent, but subject contributes all meaning. Truth and falsehood are value judgements about a relation, a relation between subject and object, you and your world.

Pain is subjective, because if I believe I am in pain, then I am in pain. I cannot be mistaken about whether I am in pain. Knowledge is objective, since I can believe I know and not know. I can be mistaken about whether I know. Therefore, knowledge is objective.