Truth and Belief

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

The truth is nothing more or less than what is proved, and thus approved as actual fact.

A "truth" claimed or assumed but not approved is thus indeed the responsiblity of the claimant, not for the truth itself to answer to, in so far as there ever was a truth itself.

None the less, belief routinely cheats, pretending to be true for want of the proof.

What then is proof? And what is it that you think one is proving? If, as you claim, Truth changes, by its very nature, and by approval or disapproval? Then the one in same proof, through these “stages” of the truth, is both valid and invalid: and therefore proves nothing. Proof becomes nothing more than just a statement of “this is what I choose . . . for now.”

According to your definition, if both truth and belief are choices, how can they really be different? And what need then is there of reason, if all is nothing more than a choice? It seems to me, that your description of the truth is nothing more than a way of stating which view has won the election.

[perplexity]

Proof is evidence sufficient to establish, in order to agree what is true, which is indeed nothing more than stating which view has won the election, exactly. What else is new?

Before the election it is all up for grabs. After the election somebody claims that somebody else rigged the ballot and who knows who would have won if they'd all turned out to vote?

None the less, we need to govern, to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

We therefore believe for want of the truth to prove beyond doubt, to make it work, to empower.

This then is the difference between a belief and a truth, the standard of proof that you choose to agree.

Before the next election, sure enough the view will change, but to make it work we allow the result none the less. We act as if what is not proved is true, and this we call belief, to be ready and willing.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Proof is evidence sufficient to establish, in order to agree what is true, which is indeed nothing more than stating which view has won the election, exactly. What else is new?

Before the election it is all up for grabs. After the election somebody claims that somebody else rigged the ballot and who knows who would have won if they'd all turned out to vote?

None the less, we need to govern, to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

We therefore believe for want of the truth to prove beyond doubt, to make it work, to empower.

This then is the difference between a belief and a truth, the standard of proof that you choose to agree.

Before the next election, sure enough the view will change, but to make it work we allow the result none the less. We act as if what is not proved is true, and this we call belief, to be ready and willing.

If truth is just a matter of election, why do "we need to govern, to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss?" Just flip a coin, vote, and get on with it. The ultimate choice of truth is only arbitrary, so why discuss and reason?

[perplexity]

Considering the "need to govern" for example, if it is not believed to be possible to prove the need, ergo the need is believed, not agreed. If you rather elect to say that the need is proved and agreed, the need is then a truth.

Considering the "need to reason" for example,

To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them.....etc.

To be, or not to be - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"A man can be a pure logician only if it makes him feel good."

---(W Ross Ashby).

[l0ck]

heh.. this topic has gone out of control! but i believe it is for a very good reason
look at these posts, see how we all have our different beliefs on what the truth is?
does that not prove that truth is nothing but what we believe it to be?
proof is not what dictates the truth at all though, you dont have to accept my proof about truth.. proof represents evidence used in forming a belief, it is applied to your logic
but that doesn't necessarily mean that proof has to be scientifically accepted, because lots of forms of logic don't involve science
for example
you believe you exist right?
but how do you prove it?
we all agree love is real right?
now tell me how you prove love is real?
truth seems to be apart of our minds
just like everything else
everyone seems to form beliefs and truths though
it is literally what makes up and defines our roles and characters in this roller coaster ride we call life and is apart of this entire experience, thats for sure
and lots of people have the same beliefs
why?
all this information can help us form a bigger picture on just what the hell is going on and obviously shows some sort of relationship between the environment and belief itself
the question to ask yourself is
does your environment form your beliefs
or does your beliefs form your environment?
hmm indeed..
the best way to approach this question is to remember when you were a child.. you were still human as you are now.. but your beliefs were very different, as well as the environment
examine at how you used to look at the environment and how it effected your beliefs and truths back then
and compare it to now
then maybe you can answer the question for yourself
and thats all it is really, something you can ask yourself.. theres no way to prove what the truth is.. all we can tell is it differs

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

The truth is nothing more or less than what is proved, and thus approved as actual fact.

A "truth" claimed or assumed but not approved is thus indeed the responsiblity of the claimant, not for the truth itself to answer to, in so far as there ever was a truth itself.

None the less, belief routinely cheats, pretending to be true for want of the proof.

Aren't there unproved truths? For example, was it not true even in the middle ages that water was H20, but it certainly had not been proved that it was then. And, isn't it either true or (it is true that it is) false that Julius Caesar sneezed just before he was murdered? But no one has proved which it was? And, isn't it very very likely that right now there are truths no one knows about, and so, have not been proved, and may never be proved? After all, it is either true, or it is true that it is false, that there is a God. But agnostics hold that we will never know, and so, neither of the alternatives will be proved.

[perplexity]

One may well suppose some sort of permanent continuation of truth. It is wonderfully convenient to do so. Politicians love to put off eventual elections for as long as possible, but does the delay stand up to close examination?

If it is valid to suppose that what is true now was "true" in the Middle Ages, albeit significantly mistaken, not then the whole truth and nothing but, one is also obliged to suppose that everything we presently hold to be to be true may thus be subject to an eventual revision.

It therefore follows that nothing that we presently believe to be true is absolutely true for all eternity, a good example of the the way that belief cheats by pretending to be true.

Subject to this analysis the very continuity of truth turns out to be belief on the make, for want of the way to prove a future truth.

Metaphysics thus confirms that the closest we get to irrefutability is to say that everything changes. The more they try prove an absolute fact, the more the pesky fact will dodge dominion; along comes yet another claim to explain existence, etc. ad infinitum.

Practical science is thus in essence:

"To Hell with it, let's make do."

[Isa]

If Truth is nothing more than what is agreed upon; how is it decided when there is sufficient agreement to make a view become the truth?

Or what exactly is it that is being agreed upon? If I would agree with a view because it will make more money for me; and another person agrees because it will make him right; and another agrees because his favorite celebrity agrees; and another agrees because he wants to see the downfall of civilization; and another agrees because it seems that everyone else is agreeing; is this really agreement?

And why does there need to be agreement for a view to be true?

Since every view can then vacillate between truth and falsehood, just as human opinion and agreement will vacillate. Why can't every individual have an independent view that they all consider to be the truth, and have them all be equally true?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Isa

If Truth is nothing more than what is agreed upon; how is it decided when there is sufficient agreement to make a view become the truth?

Or what exactly is it that is being agreed upon? If I would agree with a view because it will make more money for me; and another person agrees because it will make him right; and another agrees because his favorite celebrity agrees; and another agrees because he wants to see the downfall of civilization; and another agrees because it seems that everyone else is agreeing; is this really agreement?

And why does there need to be agreement for a view to be true?

Since every view can then vacillate between truth and falsehood, just as human opinion and agreement will vacillate. Why can't every individual have an independent view that they all consider to be the truth, and have them all be equally true?

First of all, how could truth be what is agreed on if there are cases of agreement which turned out to be false? For instance, the shape of the Earth, and whether the Sun revolves around the Earth, or whether the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Second of all, how could what is agreed on make anything true. How could our agreement that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun make Mars the fourth planet from the Sun. What has agree to do with the facts?

Third, if agreement were all there was to truth, then then would we not have to determine whether it was true that there was agreement that something was true? And how should we do that? By seeing whether we are all agreed that we agree that something is true? But how would we determine that? Truth cannot be agreement because we have to be able to determine whether it is true that we agree. To determine whether we agree we have to determine whether it is true that we agree.

[boagie]

Isa,

A lone voice does not make you wrong but perhaps unpopular. In both cases it is a process, the collective you might say assures the notion of truth. Few people would trust their well being to the judgement of the group agreement when their life is on the line. I think truth here might simply be, both on the individal level as well as the group level, a probablity theory or process. The truth you might say is the precieved relation between subject and object tested and subjectively confirmed, group agreement is probably thought to be the outcome of this repeated test thus increasing the probablity of said judgement. It is the judgement of one test in relation to that of many tests to come to the conclusion of truth or falsehood. The judgment of one test is less likely to hold true than the judgement of the many or majority of repeated tests.

In a sense even on an individual level there is subjectively an agreement as to the status of the relation in question, this is the said judgement of truth or falsehood. It is this same process assumed and multiplied in group agreement, so its nature is not really different than the individual example, other than being a compound of the same process---a double checking, with the plurality of a group check. Group agreement is not necassarily truth, the only truth of it is its greater probablity of truth through group thought, the multiplication of the individual process.