What is Truth?

[maxfreakout]

"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.

this is ALL that i am saying, if you agree with this, then you agree with the whole point i am expressing on this thread

anything you think you know can turn out to be false in the future, and therefore you cannot know anything. This applies to ANY proposition 'p', you cannot know any proposition to be true

so can we agree then, that:
1.*in theory* knowledge must require truth

2.*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..

1. yes i agree, knowledge requires truth, every definition of knowledge that has ever been formulated, has made this absolutely explicit

if something isnt true, it can be (falsely) believed, but it cannot possibly be known

2. yes i agree, any proposition that is believed to be true, could turn out to be false, this is why knowledge is impossible

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.

but even the fact that you have 'witnessed' something does not guarantee that it is true, your senses can lie to you, so whether you perceive something or not, either way you cannot know it

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..

the standard epistemological definition of 'knowledge' ever since Socrates, has been:
Justified, true, belief

there has been no other competitor for a definition of knowledge besides this one, so it follows, that in order to know that p:

1. you must believe that p
2. p must be true
3. your belief must be justified

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

this does not distinguish knowledge from mere belief

you can perceive something with all 5 senses, and 'conclude' that it is true, but it might still be false, your senses can trick you

 

[Pariah]

Refute can also mean disagree, but thats fine, have it your way.

"my position is irrefutable"

Read as: Ideology

A theory is the stating of a causal relationship and / or condition process *that can be proven false*, and independent of the things being explained.

An ideology: a system which can be shown to be true.

Now, at the end of the day science to becomes an ideology, but where it differs is its practical approach, and its "quality control" - criteria of adequacy, the requirement to be falsifiable etc.


Ideology is great if you want to flex your ego, because simpletons will praise you for your "wise words."

One way to compare a theory with ideology is like this:

***
Two people are in a competely dark room.

Theorist: I think there might be a light switch in here somewhere.
Idealogue: No there isn't.
Theorist: Well, I'm going to search for one anyway.
Idealogue: Even if you find something that feels like a light switch, there's nothing to say it is.
Theorist(stumbling in the dark): ahah! this could be it.
(*click*)
Idealogue: Its not a lightswitch, your senses could be fooling you even if the room lights up.
Theorist: It worked - and theres a door.
Idealogue(sitting on his hands, with eyes closed in the now lit room): ..the door is an illusion.
Theorist: Well, I'm leaving through this illusiory door, into the illusiory room beyond, hey there's an illusiory xbox here with an illusion second contoller to, are you sure you don't want to join me?.....
Idealogue: The room is only your beleif in a room
well either way, I'm curious, cya. (door closes behind theorist).
Idealogue: pfft, fool.

***

An ideology in the pure form tends to be utterly meaningless - heads I win tails you lose: "yay, I'm right because I say so."

Like so much verbal vomit, it should be flushed down the toilet of common sense.


Here's how it is:

Every man likes large breasted women - those that claim otherwise are repressing their sexual urges.

Conciously or unconciously everyone acts to maximise their own pleasure.

Conciously or unconciously we are all jelly beans.

Do you see what I'm getting at: If you see yourself as a jelly bean - you back up the ideology, if you don't, you back up the ideology, or at the very least get discarded by it.

Don't waste my time with ideology, ideology is why this world is crawling with televangelists and other charlatans.




...Who knows, maybe you'll join us in the other room one day.

 

[maxfreakout]

what i am saying is neither ideology nor theory, calling it an ideology or a theory is just a way of avoiding facing up to it, which is what people tend to do when they are confronted with something potentially devastating like this


what i am saying is merely a STATEMENT in response to the title of this thread:

- nothing is true


this is irrefutable, undeniable, but also impossible to admit

 

[ophiuchus]

idk, i think in reality these terms have validity.. but in theory, which is what this topic has more or less become about, things like truth and knowledge is impractical

 

[tryptonaut]

The truth is: I don't really want to read all the posts in this thread