What is Truth?

[Pariah]

Whether you want to discuss it or not nominalism has everything to do with what you're saying, because nominalism is defining *everything* - including whatever you or I say - if everything is names then everything comes under it.

One of the relevant aspects of nominalism is that it would mean that we disagree because we have different names for things - the best candidate would be "truth" - my name for truth doesn't require any sort of certainty, where your name for truth does.

That would lead us to investigate the virtues of our names of truth - which I've already gone into.

I do not accept this:

I know that p

is precisely to say that

I know that p is TRUE

- Truth is assumed as independent as I've already said many times, not requiring knowledge of itself.


"1. knowledge requires truth (which we both agree with)

2. nothing is true

therefore knowledge is impossible "

I want you to demonstrate why nothing is true - please don't use it *inside* your argument until you demonstrate that nothing is true - use it in a way that it becomes a conclusion. Using the same structure for demonstrating why nothing is true would be very helpful - what don't you accept from the way I thought you came to that conclusion?


Your name for truth seems to chase its own tail leading to a paradox: knowledge requires truth, truth requires knowledge, knowledge requires truth etc.

As much fun as paradoxes are when you're stoned, they don't lead to the conclusion you make, they don't lead anywhere.

From that paradox you make the conclusion that truth is nothing, but a paradox doesn't demonstrate a conclusion it demonstrates that the argument has a false element to it - for example that your definition of truth is flawed.

 

[Lion]

truth is unexcistent

 

[Meduzz]

truth is unexcistent

Truth does exist. You have a system like math, language, physics,... Each has it's own axioms and rules from which you can form a statement which is true.
Let's suppose 1+1=2 and consider the meaning of the symbols as true (our axioms and rules). Then "2+2=4" is a true statement.

However the problem is in the isomorphology between the system you use and the system of the universe. Or better the lack of it.

Every formal system created by man has been an approximation of only certain parts of what's going on the universe. So the truths in those systems have the same incompleteness as the systems themselves.


interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... s_theorems

 

[Pariah]

Thanks for the link and your input Meduzz, very interesting, although I have to admit that following all of the letters of the theorums gets a bit mind boggling!

 

[Meduzz]

If you're interested read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach

 

[ophiuchus]

truth doesnt require certainty, but knowledge *certainly* requires truth, you cannot know something which isnt true, do you agree?

knowledge requires truth, by definition, because 'to know that p', is the same as saying 'to know that p is TRUE', you have already agreed with me that knowledge requires truth

no, i would say that
1. knowledge requires truth (which we both agree with)

2. nothing is true

therefore knowledge is impossible


knowledge doesnt require certainty, but knowledge DOES require truth, which as i have demonstrated, makes it impossible to know anything

why does knowledge require truth?? this is what i want to know.. why is "knowledge" such a prestigious word, that it must incorporate truth to be a valid term? they are two words, and i believe reasonably so, they are different in their defining phrases, and i do not belive that they are synonymous (by definition).

i think: can one not know something (as in having information about something or being given information about sthing) that isn't true? but is percieved to be true by all explainable methods? in this sense it will end up being false down the road, but right now it cannot, by any method convieved possible, be proven that it is false ie: newtons law, so therefore it's percieved and considered true, but it is not true. so it would seem your correct on nothing is true, as in nothing can absolutely 100% be proven true. but it can be percieved as true even though what is percieved is actually false

-knowledge-

(websters): acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation (truth by perception)

(wiki): knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose (gaining understanding through percieving that which is understood)

one must understand something with perception. (ie the 5 senses) therefore making it possible to appear true when in actuality being false ei: magicians dont actually cut people in half, but since we aren't allowed backstage, this is our truth and we tell people this)

my point being that knowledge IS possible, only ablolute truth is impossible. truth may or may not be possible down the road, but right now, it is deemed as impossible

edited a couple of times if your replying right now...

 

[????????]

the problem is in the isomorphology between the system you use and the system of the universe. Or better the lack of it.

did you read GEB?

 

[????????]

ah i just realized you did

i haven't finished it but i also recommend it...

 

[maxfreakout]

why does knowledge require truth?? this is what i want to know.. why is "knowledge" such a prestigious word, that it must incorporate truth to be a valid term?

knowledge requires truth, in order to distinguish it from mere belief

to say that "i believe that p" means that p may or may not actually be true, whereas if you say "i know that p", p has to be true (in order to make the statement "i know that p" a true statement)


so for example, if, the day after the recent US election, if your friends played a trick on you to make you think Mccain had won instead of Obama, you could say:

"i believe that Mccain won the election" - and you would be right, because your 'belief' is false

but if you said:

"i know that Mccain won the election" - you would be WRONG, because you do not know this, you only believe it


in other words, the statement "I know that Mccain won the election", can never be a true statement, because Obama won the election


it is part of the definition of what 'knowledge' is, that anything known must be true, from the dictionary, it says:

knowledge - the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.


so knowledge requires truth, whereas mere belief doesnt, if you take away the requirement that knowledge requires truth, then it becomes impossible to tell the difference between belief and knowledge

i think: can one not know something (as in having information about something or being given information about sthing) that isn't true?

im talking about 'knowing' in the purely epistemological sense of the word, as in:

"i know that p"

where 'p' is any subject-predicate proposition

knowing p, means knowing the truth of p, it isnt about knowing information about something, it is about knowing something 'to be the case', ie knowing something to be true

but is percieved to be true by all explainable methods? in this sense it will end up being false down the road, but right now it cannot, by any method convieved possible, be proven that it is false ie: newtons law, so therefore it's percieved and considered true

yes i agree, i think what you are pointing out here, is essentially that people tend to treat their beliefs as if they were knowledge, but i am pointing out that this is philosophically inappropriate because they are not knowledge, they are just beliefs. ie 'considering' something to be true, or 'perceiving' something as true, is not the same thing as knowing something to be true

ANYthing which is taken to be 'known' in the present, *might* turn out to be wrong in the future, if some unanticipated information arrives that shows it to be mistaken

we have many beliefs, but no knowledge (because it is impossible to know)

but it is not true. so it would seem your correct on nothing is true, as in nothing can absolutely 100% be proven true. but it can be percieved as true even though what is percieved is actually false

this is exactly what i am getting at on this thread, nothing can be 100% proven true

'peceiving' something as true, is just the same as believing it, but KNOWING something is true requires more than just believing it, or perceiving it as true or whatever, actually knowing something is true requires that what you know actually IS true, but you can never know, therefore nothing is true

one must understand something with perception. (ie the 5 senses) therefore making it possible to appear true when in actuality being false ei: magicians dont actually cut people in half, but since we aren't allowed backstage, this is our truth and we tell people this)

it isnt 'our truth', it is our BELIEF, and it is a false belief

'falsity' is the opposite of truth, so there is no justification in calling it 'our truth'

my point being that knowledge IS possible, only ablolute truth is impossible. truth may or may not be possible down the road, but right now, it is deemed as impossible

this is a contradiction, knowledge (in the epistemological sense) requires truth, and this makes it impossible

 

[maxfreakout]

However the problem is in the isomorphology between the system you use and the system of the universe. Or better the lack of it.

exactly, to say that 'nothing is true' is to say that there are no statements of language that are true

this is because language does not truly connect to reality, a 'lack of isomorphology'

knowledge of truth would require that language somehow broke outside of itself and grasped something external to itself (ie grasped truth), but it cannot possibly do this, so knowledge is impossible

belief doesnt require truth, so it is arbitrary and unanchored what people believe

 

[Forkbender]

Truth is.

 

[maxfreakout]

my name for truth doesn't require any sort of certainty, where your name for truth does.

no this is absurd, we both agree (i hope) that truth has to be true

I do not accept this:

I know that p

is precisely to say that

I know that p is TRUE

- Truth is assumed as independent as I've already said many times, not requiring knowledge of itself.

'that p' means 'that it is true that p'

if you say "i know that Obama won the election" you are saying that 'Obama won the election' is true

I want you to demonstrate why nothing is true

what is it that you want me to do? Do you want me to demonstrate *that* nothing is true?

because to 'demonstrate' something, is to demonstrate the truth of something

so you are asking me to demonstrate nothing, which doesnt require that i do anything

use it in a way that it becomes a conclusion.

so you are asking me to conclude that nothing is true

ie not to conclude anything

which doesnt require me to do anything

so what are you aksing me to do?

what don't you accept from the way I thought you came to that conclusion?

i didnt come to any conclusion

Your name for truth seems to chase its own tail leading to a paradox: knowledge requires truth, truth requires knowledge, knowledge requires truth etc.

you already said earlier that it was a 'contradiction', now a paradox, but it is neither, it is perfectly straightforward, but nobody wants to admit it because the consequences might be devastating

knowledge requires truth, but nothins is true so knowledge is impossible

As much fun as paradoxes are when you're stoned, they don't lead to the conclusion you make, they don't lead anywhere.

im not making a conclusion, if by 'making a conclusion' you mean 'concluding that something is true', which is what i suspect you do mean

From that paradox you make the conclusion that truth is nothing, but a paradox doesn't demonstrate a conclusion it demonstrates that the argument has a false element to it - for example that your definition of truth is flawed.

there is no paradox whatsoever in what i am saying

my definition of truth is exactly the same as yours, ie:

truth has to be TRUE

 

[ophiuchus]

knowledge requires truth, in order to distinguish it from mere belief

"i believe that Mccain won the election" - and you would be right, because your 'belief' is false

but if you said:

"i know that Mccain won the election" - you would be WRONG, because you do not know this, you only believe it

in other words, the statement "I know that Mccain won the election", can never be a true statement, because Obama won the election

knowledge - the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

so knowledge requires truth, whereas mere belief doesnt, if you take away the requirement that knowledge requires truth, then it becomes impossible to tell the difference between belief and knowledge

knowledge doesn't always require truth though. it's evidence is even in the definition you supplied... knowledge only requires the *perception of truth*. which would leave that open to the percievers interpretation, which could easily be false. ie: the magician scenario... and this is where my problem with epistemology lies. it doesn't take into account the fact for this scenario of truth, knowledge, and belief, there has to be an observer, therefore making any part fallible
**(perceiving with 1or more of the 5 senses is the only way to receive information of truth)


" im talking about 'knowing' in the purely epistemological sense of the word"

i have my issues with epistemology^^^



"yes i agree, i think what you are pointing out here, is essentially that people tend to treat their beliefs as if they were knowledge, but i am pointing out that this is philosophically inappropriate because they are not knowledge, they are just beliefs. ie 'considering' something to be true, or 'perceiving' something as true, is not the same thing as knowing something to be true

but how can one know something, with out percieving what is trying to be known?

that's how i see, that anything known can be fallible.

saying knowledge has to be percieved as being true is the same as saying knowledge can either be true or false as long as you percieved it as appearing true.

and one cant very well say that knowledge has to be true without that bit above about actually percieving it. because if it cant be percieved, then it can't even be debated in the first place...



"ANYthing which is taken to be 'known' in the present, *might* turn out to be wrong in the future, if some unanticipated information arrives that shows it to be mistaken

we have many beliefs, but no knowledge (because it is impossible to know)

but it is not true. so it would seem your correct on nothing is true, as in nothing can absolutely 100% be proven true. but it can be percieved as true even though what is percieved is actually false

this is exactly what i am getting at on this thread, nothing can be 100% proven true

which is exactly my point with knowledge, nothing can 100% be known, because nothing can 100% be known to be true.



" 'perceiving' something as true, is just the same as believing it"

the differentiation of belief from knowledge is that the belief doesn't have to be perceived, whereas the knowledge does have to be perceived... do you see what im getting at with this? there is a difference...



" but KNOWING something is true requires more than just believing it, or perceiving it as true or whatever, actually knowing something is true requires that what you know actually IS true, but you can never know, therefore nothing is true"

i concur. but since nothing can be known by any other means...



it isnt 'our truth', it is our BELIEF, and it is a false belief

*i meant our belief

 

[maxfreakout]

knowledge doesn't always require truth though.

yes it does, as every definition of knowledge makes explicitly clear something known has to be true, otherwise it isnt known, it is a false belief

ie the statement:

"i know that mccain won the election" - is a FALSE statement, because Obama won, whereas the statement:

"i believe that mccain won the election" could be a true statement, if you genuinely believed that mccain had won

it's evidence is even in the definition you supplied... knowledge only requires the *perception of truth*. which would leave that open to the percievers interpretation, which could easily be false. ie: the magician scenario... and this is where my problem with epistemology lies. it doesn't take into account the fact for this scenario of truth, knowledge, and belief, there has to be an observer, therefore making any part fallible
**(perceiving with 1or more of the 5 senses is the only way to receive information of truth)

if a magician played a trick on you, he would cause you to have a false belief (ie the belief that someone had been cut in half), he would NOT cause you to have false knowledge, because the concept of 'false knowledge' is self-contradictory

you can believe something to be true which actually isnt true, but you cannot know something to be true which isnt actually true

i have my issues with epistemology^^^

epistemology is the study of knowledge, which is what this conversation is about

but how can one know something, with out percieving what is trying to be known?

you cant know anything, because anything you think you know could turn out to be merely falsely believed

that's how i see, that anything known can be fallible.

beliefs can be fallible, but knowledge cant be, because knowledge requires truth (by definition)

saying knowledge has to be percieved as being true is the same as saying knowledge can either be true or false as long as you percieved it as appearing true.

no definition of knowledge says it has to be perceived 'as being' true

perceiving something as being true, is what it means to BELIEVE something, whereas knowing something requires that is *actually is* true

the differentiation of belief from knowledge is that the belief doesn't have to be perceived, whereas the knowledge does have to be perceived... do you see what im getting at with this? there is a difference...

what does it mean to 'perceive' knowledge?

 

[Pariah]

Oh Lordy.

For fear of adding yet another mile long post to the list, I'll try to just say a few things instead of endlessly quoting and refuing what you say.

It seems as though you're being overly pedantic with what your saying: All I'm seeing is a mantra like, vain repetition of a few phrases, nit picking what others are saying, and cherry picking the things you discuss.

Alot of what your saying is so far off of logical structure, that it doesn't even merit the term fallacy.

The "truth has to be true" nonsense doesn't wash either - if its a definition, its a meaningless one - it doesn't say what truth is or isn't, its just using a word to define the same word - coming across to me alot like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalala" than it is engaging with the ideas being put forward.

I wanted a *complete*, simple, logical statement, which gives reason to accept what your saying - define your terms, affirm the antecedent, deny the consiquent, throw in a bit of induction if you will, do what you have to do, but don't just say nothing is true, and leave it at that, with only an appeal to ignorance wrapped up as logic for our minds to gnaw on.

You seem to have stuck your head in the sand concerning nominalism, and haven't really acknowledged "the meat" what Meduzz has said from what I've read, despite it being a very succinct description of the existence of the somethings we call truth. As for what your trying to pull on adrianhaffner: it seems odd since I've already discussed and refuted many of the points you seem to try to make under the theory/theories I've written.

One interesting thing you said was: "language does not truly connect to reality" you haven't really discussed what you think reality is yet (and equally importantly *why*)... but that would also be an interesting read assuming you could use a logical framework, defining your terms etc. Again, I think we've moved backwards through alot of this stuff - you should really define reality before getting carried away with truth, as with truth before knowledge.

Maybe I'm doing a bit of cherry picking myself here, I didn't want to start taking apart your comments, but this one's to hard to resist:

"it is perfectly straightforward, but nobody wants to admit it because the consequences might be devastating"

What a massive assumption... despite me not being able to find any good reason to think you're right, and your complete inability to confront the theories I put forward, I don't select "nothing is true" and accept the logically impecable mixture of direct realism, explanationist theory, sealed with nominalism; becaaause... the consiquences of my accepting nothing is true is too "devastating" for me...

this "nothing is true" stuff is starting to smell more like self sealing ideology than a theory now.


ahwall, so much for the short post...

 

[druglessdouglas]

i have never told the truth :wink:

 

[magickmumu]

All you told us was a lie :?: :wink:

 

[ophiuchus]

yes it does, as every definition of knowledge makes explicitly clear something known has to be true, otherwise it isnt known, it is a false belief

ie the statement:

i dont want to argue the same points over and over again, and im sure you dont either.. i see your point in this, which totally agrees with epistemology, but i dont agree with it because "something known" has to be percieved. ill address that closer to the bottom.

but how can one know something, with out percieving what is trying to be known?

"you cant know anything, because anything you think you know could turn out to be merely falsely believed"

i agree. this statement is speaking about real events, not theoretical ones, and therefore i believe it applies.

that's how i see, that anything known can be fallible.

beliefs can be fallible, but knowledge cant be, because knowledge requires truth (by definition)

this is true^

so can we agree then, that:
*in theory* knowledge must require truth
*in reality* knowledge, by theoretical definition, can never happen because it can never be proven that that knowledge is true, or was even true to begin with, therefore any 'knowledge in reality' (i know this is contradicting) would or could be false, because nothing is true.

now i know you're going to say that this is belief, because that is how it seems... but the difference is that knowledge is something that must have been witnessed (percieved) at some point, and a belief does not.

also, im not saying:
any definition of knowledge says it has to be perceived 'as being' true
(as you said before^)
im saying:
any definition of knowledge says it has to be 'perceived' as 'being true'.

this creates the fallibility in *real*, not *theoretical* knowledge, which even in this sense, is still not the same as belief

please show me any definition of knowledge that you like (a link so i can see it is valid), and i will show you why knowledge is different than truth and belief. even now though, i will tell you, pay attention to the manner in which it is adressed. the definition is always accompanied with terms like; studied, aquainted, experienced, perceived, witnessed, familiarity. which means a (human) must interact to obtain the information



what does it mean to 'perceive' knowledge?[/quote]

witnessing something that to the observer is concluded 'true' by way of 1 or more of the 5 senses. or in other words: introducing the notion of fallibility

 

[maxfreakout]

For fear of adding yet another mile long post to the list, I'll try to just say a few things instead of endlessly quoting and refuing what you say.

you cannot possibly 'refute' what i am saying, because to 'refute' something means to show that a claim isnt true

since i am not making any claim to truth (i am saying that nothing is true), there is nothing for you to refute, my position is irrefutable, you can either face up to it, or ignore it, but you cant refute it

The "truth has to be true" nonsense doesn't wash either - if its a definition, its a meaningless one - it doesn't say what truth is or isn't, its just using a word to define the same word

you misquoted me as saying that truth has to be certain, which i never said

i am simply pointing out that we both define 'truth' in the same way

a true statement has to be true, ie it must truly state the facts, we both agree on this

You seem to have stuck your head in the sand concerning nominalism, and haven't really acknowledged "the meat" what Meduzz has said from what I've read, despite it being a very succinct description of the existence of the somethings we call truth. As for what your trying to pull on adrianhaffner: it seems odd since I've already discussed and refuted many of the points you seem to try to make under the theory/theories I've written.

again, you cannot possibly have 'refuted' any point i have made, because i am not making any claim of truth

if you really think you have refuted me, please tell me *what* you have refuted

One interesting thing you said was: "language does not truly connect to reality" you haven't really discussed what you think reality is yet

'reality' means more or less the same thing as 'truth'

ie reality isnt anything, the reason that language cannot connect to reality, is because language assumes that reality is some thing, which it isnt, there is no reality

What a massive assumption... despite me not being able to find any good reason to think you're right

i am not 'right', saying that i am 'right' is exactly the same as saying that i am speaking the truth, but i thought i had made it obvious by now that i cannot be, because there is no truth, i am right about nothing

and your complete inability to confront the theories I put forward,

you havent put forward any theories that have any relevance to what i am saying, i will 'confront' anything you say, which is directly relevant to what i am saying, which is simply that:

knowledge is impossible

and that therefore:

nothing is true

 

[druglessdouglas]

its not true. its a good model of something which isnt true

[edit] i was so tired when i posted this i can no longer remember what my point is. sorry