Truth

[Owen]

IMO,

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Factual truth is decided by scientific methods.

Analytic truths are decided by logical methods.

Truth is relative to the system that decides it.

There is no absolute truth because there is no system of decision that is absolute.

No system of decision contains all truths.

To know is to show.

Truth exists iff there are minds.

There are no 'eternal' truths.

What we show when we prove a proposition is its truth.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Owen

IMO,

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Factual truth is decided by scientific methods.

Analytic truths are decided by logical methods.

Truth is relative to the system that decides it.

There is no absolute truth because there is no system of decision that is absolute.

No system of decision contains all truths.

To know is to show.

Truth exists iff there are minds.

There are no 'eternal' truths.

What we show when we prove a proposition is its truth.

Aren't there, and haven't there, been truths that no one can show are true? The number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach is either odd or is even, but I have no idea how to show which is true. Have you?

I know I was born. But I don't know how to show it. Maybe by pointing to myself?

The truth that there is a Moon existed long before there ever were minds, since the Moon existed long before minds existed.

It is an eternal truth that it snowed in New York City on December 19, 2009, at 12 noon. It was true a billion years ago, and will be true a billion years from now.

I don't know what some of the other things you say mean. Like, both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

[Owen]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Aren't there, and haven't there, been truths that no one can show are true? The number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach is either odd or is even, but I have no idea how to show which is true. Have you?

I know I was born. But I don't know how to show it. Maybe by pointing to myself?

The truth that there is a Moon existed long before there ever were minds, since the Moon existed long before minds existed.

It is an eternal truth that it snowed in New York City on December 19, 2009, at 12 noon. It was true a billion years ago, and will be true a billion years from now.

I don't know what some of the other things you say mean. Like, both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Ken,
"Aren't there, and haven't there, been truths that no one can show are true? The number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach is either odd or is even, but I have no idea how to show which is true. Have you?"

Yes, there are truths that cannot be shown because we don't have a method of decision for them.

Ken,
"The truth that there is a Moon existed long before there ever were minds, since the Moon existed long before minds existed."

It is assumed now, that the moon existed before mind.

When there are no minds, how is truth decided and by whom?

Ken
"It is an eternal truth that it snowed in New York City on December 19, 2009, at 12 noon. It was true a billion years ago, and will be true a billion years from now."

Wrong. It could not have been true at any time before December 19, 2009, at 12 noon.

Future tense statements do not have truth or falsity until they become part of the present. They cannot be decided.

Presumeably there were no minds present a billion years ago, if so how could your claim be decided??

Ken,
"I don't know what some of the other things you say mean. Like, both empirical truth and logical truth apply."

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.
Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Empirical truth is decided by scientific methods.
Logical truth is decided by abstract (mental) methods.
In both cases truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Owen

Ken,
"Aren't there, and haven't there, been truths that no one can show are true? The number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach is either odd or is even, but I have no idea how to show which is true. Have you?"

Yes, there are truths that cannot be shown because we don't have a method of decision for them.

Ken,
"The truth that there is a Moon existed long before there ever were minds, since the Moon existed long before minds existed."

It is assumed now, that the moon existed before mind.

When there are no minds, how is truth decided and by whom?

Ken
"It is an eternal truth that it snowed in New York City on December 19, 2009, at 12 noon. It was true a billion years ago, and will be true a billion years from now."

Wrong. It could not have been true at any time before December 19, 2009, at 12 noon.

Future tense statements do not have truth or falsity until they become part of the present. They cannot be decided.

Presumeably there were no minds present a billion years ago, if so how could your claim be decided??

Ken,
"I don't know what some of the other things you say mean. Like, both empirical truth and logical truth apply."

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.
Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Empirical truth is decided by scientific methods.
Logical truth is decided by abstract (mental) methods.
In both cases truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

There is a method for decision for the grains of sand. Count them, one by one. But in any case, you said that truth is what can be shown to be the case. And since we cannot show either there are an odd number of grains of sand, or an even number of grains of sand, but one is true, it is not true that truth is what can be shown to be the case.

Wrong. It could not have been true at any time before December 19, 2009, at 12 noon.

Of course the statement was true before it was they case. Are you saying that future contingent statments are not true?


Presumeably there were no minds present a billion years ago, if so how could your claim be decided??

It could not have been decided then, for the reason you gave. But what has that to do with whether or not it was true then? It could not be decided in the Middle Ages that germs caused disease. But it was true that germs caused disease. Deciding that something is true has nothing to do with whether it is true.

Empirical and logical truth apply to what?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Owen

There is no absolute truth because there is no system of decision that is absolute.

I think a common misconception, one which I see not only on this forum but in my daily life, is that, because there's no absolute truth (whatever that even means, I am still not clear on), there is no truth. And this is obviously false. And, of course, when you ask the person basic questions that are truth-related, such as, "Do you think it's true that you're sitting on a chair?", they usually get up from their armchairs, so to say, and agree. I think we've used this quote by Wittgenstein quite a few times on this forum, "(philosophy) consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose".

Also, I see people mistaking truth with certainty, insofar as they believe that because people are not infallible (cannot be mistaken about something), that they cannot know truth. But this, also, is false.

Truth exists iff there are minds.

I'm curious about this, though. Our ability to know the truth is clearly dependent on our minds, but how is it that truth exists iff there are minds? For doesn't truth exist no matter if any minds are present, or exist at all? Things are, no matter if I observe them, you observe them, if they're ever observed, or if they're even capable of being observed. Isn't this true?

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Things are, no matter if I observe them, you observe them, if they're ever observed, or if they're even capable of being observed. Isn't this true?

I think this hinges on the problem of being. What is it to be? Is consciousness an essential element of being? Are both consciousness and its object the co-creators of being? Or is "being" a hopelessly vague word, just like "existence"?

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Owen

IMO,
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

I enjoyed your post. I do see a difficulty thought. What sort of statement is the sentence above? How can this verification principle itself be verified? I think this statement could be elaborated on. I offer you this from Wiki- what do you think?

It is frequently argued that the verification principle is self-refuting, in that its axioms are neither empirically verifiable nor tautologous.
Verificationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:54 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Owen

When there are no minds, how is truth decided and by whom?
.

I agree. I also think that truth is a property of sentences.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:55 PM ----------

Originally Posted by kennethamy

There is a method for decision for the grains of sand. Count them, one by one. But in any case, you said that truth is what can be shown to be the case. And since we cannot show either there are an odd number of grains of sand, or an even number of grains of sand, but one is true, it is not true that truth is what can be shown to be the case.

This is a good point. There are things we assume that can be verified that are not worth the effort.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I think this hinges on the problem of being. What is to be? Is consciousness an essential element of being? Are both consciousness and its object the co-creators of being?

It doesn't seem to me that consciousness is an essential element of being, but may be an essential element of experiencing being. The sun has been around way before anything consciously observed it, and will be around way after anything consciously observes it. And the sun does exist - it has being, does it not? So, how could consciousness be an essential element of being, if something can clearly be without consciousness?

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

So, how could consciousness be an essential element of being, if something can clearly be without consciousness?

For me it's just a matter of agreeing on how we want to use terms. Still, how is it that something can clearly be without consciousness? If you mean we can infer it and that this inference is justified by our experience, I agree. But "clearly" is a strong word for an inference. No human has ever known being except thru consciousness (I'll venture that.) Even our inference of mind-independent being is the conscious being of a present moment. (And look at this word presence...Husserl and Derrida and Heidegger go on and on about it. What is presence?)

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

For me it's just a matter of agreeing on how we want to use terms. Still, how is it that something can clearly be without consciousness? If you mean we can infer it and that this inference is justified by our experience, I agree. But "clearly" is a strong word for an inference. No human has ever known being except thru consciousness (I'll venture that.) Even our inference of mind-independent being is the conscious being of a present moment. (And look at this word presence...Husserl and Derrida and Heidegger go on and on about it. What is presence?)

Suppose we agree to use terms so that Abraham Lincoln assassinated John Wilkes Booth. Would that make it true that Lincoln assassinated Booth? The following story is told of Lincoln who asked his son, Tad, if a dog's tail is called a leg, how many legs does a dog have. Tad replied, five. Lincoln retorted, "Wrong. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg".

Even our inference of mind-independent being is the conscious being of a present moment.

As far as I am able understand that sentence, it is clearly false. My inference that there is a chair in the next room is not of a conscious being. It is of a chair.

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

My inference that there is a chair in the next room is not of a conscious being. It is of a chair.

The key phrase here is "my inference." Your are the consciousness of an inference of that chair in the other room. That chair can be described as an object of consciousness. There are times when such distinctions are unnecessary, of course.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 06:59 PM ----------

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Lincoln retorted, "Wrong. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg".

Calling it a "leg" in the first place is what makes it a "leg." In China in something else. Of course I understand your point, but names are based on consensus.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 07:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Zetherin

It doesn't seem to me that consciousness is an essential element of being, but may be an essential element of experiencing being. The sun has been around way before anything consciously observed it, and will be around way after anything consciously observes it. And the sun does exist - it has being, does it not? So, how could consciousness be an essential element of being, if something can clearly be without consciousness?

It just sounds like we have different uses of the word being. Perhaps you take the correspondence theory of truth as axiomatic. Perhaps "being" for you is congruent with Kant's noumena. If you want to define being as mind-independent stuff, I have no objection to that. It's a reasonable position. It's just that some of the philosophers I like use it in the other way. Like Heidegger. Why is there something rather than nothing? If we had no consciousness, nothing would exist. And where was being before our birth. Presumably it was here, waiting for us. It just seems to me that consciousness is the ground of all experience, and that the inference of mind-independent stuff (being in your sense) is a useful sort of experience, one that deserved and achieved codification as the correspondence theory of truth or objectivity.