Truth and Belief

[boagie]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Plato was deeply concerned with the difference between belief and truth.

What are some of your thoughts?

My thought would be that truth is a qualified reality,meaning apparent reality or ultimate reality-truth is things fall down.A belief does not need to be true or false to be held,it has no relation to truth.

"reality[truth]is to the individual perception,to the group reality[truth] is agreement." Time for my meds!

[Isa]

I think it may be difficult to put a clear line of demarcation between truth and belief. On one hand, it may seem that belief and truth are on opposite ends of a line, and yet there is a great deal of overlap between them.

The main difference between belief and truth may well be that of perception: perception of what it means to know something, and perception of man’s ability (or inability) to know something.

Intuitively, I would say that the more certainty that a person has about knowing “such-and-such” to be factual, the more likely they are to perceive “such-and-such” as a truth. Whereas, if a person perceives that there is information about “such-and-such” that they currently don’t have, or are unable to obtain, but that could disprove “such-and-such”; then they might see their views on “such-and-such” as being a belief (many infinite and/or abstract concepts could well fall under the heading of belief): theory could be a very close synonym to belief.

So a truth may be nothing more than the highest level of belief: a level reserved for those beliefs that are perceived to fulfill the criteria of knowing everything there is to know about said belief, and knowing that everything about said belief is factual. But the future always threatens to reveal facts and human misperceptions that may well relegate a truth to simple belief status, or may well change it to an outright lie or error.

[boagie]

What does one have to do with the other? Because you believe something it obviously does not make it true Because evolutionary biology is true, you do not have to believe it Look at all them creationists!!

Is not this the best understanding we can have of truth, that it is of the relation between subject and object. Truth is relational understanding/knowledge. Through said understanding I believe I cannot independently fly. I would say that is truth, relative to myself as subject and the thin air as object, it is my belief, my judgement of that said relation between subject and object, and it is true.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by boagie

What does one have to do with the other?

Truth relies on agreement.

Agreement relies on belief.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Truth relies on agreement.

Agreement relies on belief.

Perplexity,

Certainly agreement is essential for the group to conclude truth. This needs further examination though, belief, and agreement are not a guarantee of truth, simply a guarantee of group thought, which is far from infallible.


"A Lone Voice Does Not Make One Wrong." Dr Laura

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Truth relies on agreement.

Agreement relies on belief.

And yet, truth has usually started with an individual speaking out against the agreements of a group; and what the group believed or held to be the truth.

It seems that if something is actually the truth, it is so independent of agreement. If something is actually a truth, there can and should be agreement; however if something is held to be the truth simply because it is agreed upon, it is nothing more than a popular view. It seems that history has shown us that the truth and the convictions of belief have always had to withstand being unpopular.

[perplexity]

Infallible truth is a belief.

Agreement is fallible.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Infallible truth is a belief.

Agreement is fallible.

perplexity,

"Infalliable truth is belief."If belief is falliable are we not just playing with semantics here, it seems to me to come too nonsense. On an individual level reason counts upon the clearity of perception, both are falliable but its the best that can be done. Actually infalliablity is like perfection, in that it does not exist.

[perplexity]

In so far as belief does not rely on agreement, belief is not therefore fallible.

Infallibility infers absolute agreement, eternally.

What then happens is that as soon as somebody claims an infallible truth somebody else comes along with an alternative infallibility, etc.

Nonsense indeed.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

In so far as belief does not rely on agreement, belief is not therefore fallible.

Infallibility infers absolute agreement, eternally.

What then happens is that as soon as somebody claims an infallible truth somebody else comes along with an alternative infallibility, etc.

Nonsense indeed.

But doesn’t it seem a bit wrong to attribute either infallibility or fallibility to truth: isn’t that like saying that the circumference of the earth is fallible, because Eratosthenes’ calculations were a bit off (mostly due to the limits of his measuring devices, rather than his calculations). I would think that it is only appropriate to apply fallibility to intellect and reason.

Through the ages, there have been many calculations of the circumference of the earth (as well as a period where some, not all, believed the earth to be flat); before the current age, with the help of much more accurate measuring devices, the circumference has been determined to be 24,901.55 miles around the equator and 24,859.82 miles through the poles. But regardless of the past human calculations/views of the Earth’s circumference, the actual truth of the Earth’s circumference was always there, unchanged by man’s fallible intellect and reason.

And though truth doesn’t seem to have any significance (some may even postulate existence) outside of intellect and reason, it also doesn’t seem to be dependent on intellect and reason. It can only make sense that intellect and reason go about ascertaining the truth, not creating the truth: intellect and reason creating the truth would truly make the truth too ethereal and meaningless. Social convention may label some view as the truth, and thereby create a type of “working knowledge;” but the actual truth is still independent of this “working knowledge,” even if the “working knowledge” is correct.