Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Define truth
Topic Started: Apr 27 2007, 06:46 AM (788 Views)
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 01:46 PM
TomK
Apr 27 2007, 07:34 AM

The Word of God (that would be the Christian one I'm talkiing about.)

Tom even if you believe that with all your might it doesn't make it absolutely true.
It is in the category or religious belief.

You're right, Kenny. Just believing it does not make it absolute truth. Nor does simply believing that water is H20 make that an absolute truth. Proving it does not make it truth either -- the fact that it is true (or not true) is separate from our recognition of that truth (or falsehood).

But by the same token, just because it is religious belief does not mean that it CANNOT be absolute truth.

It might, in fact, be absolutely true... and then everyone who believes that it is not true is absolutely wrong.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 01:46 PM
A muslim can also believe in her religion with all her might.

They can't both be true because they claim different things.
One religion MAY be true, but they cannot both be.

Religion is complex -- you can't really say that Christianity says *only this* and Islam says *only that*. They both say lots of different things. Some are the same -- for example, that there is a God. Some are different -- for example, that Muhammad was a prophet.

And although they both describe a God, they describe that god differently, and they differ on the many ways of praising that God, and they differ on the many ways that God wants people to live their lives.

So they might both be right -- if there is a God. And at the same time, they might both be wrong -- if they have described this god falsely. One religion might be right about certain ways of living life, the other might be right about certain other ways of living life, and they might both be wrong about yet other ways of living life, and they might both be right in agreeing upon certain other ways of living life.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 02:46 PM
Go ahead.
Don't google it or dictionary it.

Also please write in your answer before reading anyone else's post.

How do you define truth?


A property of descriptions such that the information contained in the description matches the reality it is intended to describe.

Edit: I think Aqua's view has a lot of merit, i used to believe it entirely, i more uncertain these days about how to think about the problem. My definition above applies merely to the everyday usage of truth e.g. it's true that George Bush is the president.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 01:46 PM
TomK
Apr 27 2007, 07:34 AM

The Word of God (that would be the Christian one I'm talkiing about.)

Tom even if you believe that with all your might it doesn't make it absolutely true.
It is in the category or religious belief.

A muslim can also believe in her religion with all her might.

They can't both be true because they claim different things.
One religion MAY be true, but they cannot both be.

Since God is allegedly all-powerful, He should be able to transcend mere human logic, and therefore make apparently conflicting viewpoints all true. Maybe all religions are therefore true. Or maybe none are.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Truth is that which is not false.

Truth is not to be confused with fact, which is empirically verifiable. Truth may often, in matters great and small, not be verifiable/provable.

As an example: O.J. did it. ^_^

And kenny, in your apple instance: if you have two apples on the table, and someone takes away one, you might still have two. As proven by the great mathmetician, Stymie, in the Little Rascals, "I got one in my pocket!"

Posted Image
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I know it when I see it. ;)

I'll let you know.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Since God is allegedly all-powerful, He should be able to transcend mere human logic, and therefore make apparently conflicting viewpoints all true. Maybe all religions are therefore true. Or maybe none are.


I think it's a mistake to think logic is something that can somehow be "transcended", in fact i think it's a kind of category error. Suppose someone says something like:

Logic says you can't have a square circle. But God is infinitely powerfull so he can make a square circle transcending logic.

The thing is though logic doesn't really say you can't have a square circle it says the term "square circle" is completely incoherent, it doesn't mean anything, it's undefined.

Logic is a property of language - if i want to say anything, then i better be consistent in my use of symbols, if i'm not, then i won't know what my symbols mean, indeed no-one will know because they won't have a meaning, they will just be a random collection of shapes. Logic does not restrict or restrain reality in any way at all. Indeed it seems to me it's not even right to say logic "restricts" language, it's just if you want to use a set rules to represent something then you can't violate your own rules!

Hmm that was a bit a random aside. Oh well.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 27 2007, 02:26 PM
it's just if you want to use a set rules to represent something then you can't violate your own rules!

But of course, that does not mean that the rules you have set are perfect. They are still man-made rules for the sake of understanding and describing.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I'm not sure it means much to refer to the rules of a given language as perfect or not. They are just rules. We are free to make new languages or add to existing languages we just have to be consistent. If i want to use maths to say something and idecide to represent the identity operation by "=", that is "=" is defined as A=A. Then i cannot have A=B and B=C and A!=C. Because i violate the thing i've said i'm going to use.

I mean you might say something like it is not possible to represent some aspect of reality in language, indeed particularly if you take the Plato cave stuff, or a Kantian kind of transcendental concept seriously then that implies there is a fundamentally undescribeable component to reality.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 27 2007, 11:09 AM
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 02:46 PM
Go ahead.
Don't google it or dictionary it.

Also please write in your answer before reading anyone else's post.

How do you define truth?


A property of descriptions such that the information contained in the description matches the reality it is intended to describe.

Edit: I think Aqua's view has a lot of merit, i used to believe it entirely, i more uncertain these days about how to think about the problem. My definition above applies merely to the everyday usage of truth e.g. it's true that George Bush is the president.

Or monosyllabically:

when we say what a thing is, and it is, or what it is not, and is not, we speak the truth.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 27 2007, 11:09 AM
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 02:46 PM
Go ahead.
Don't google it or dictionary it.

Also please write in your answer before reading anyone else's post.

How do you define truth?


A property of descriptions such that the information contained in the description matches the reality it is intended to describe.

Edit: I think Aqua's view has a lot of merit, i used to believe it entirely, i more uncertain these days about how to think about the problem. My definition above applies merely to the everyday usage of truth e.g. it's true that George Bush is the president.

Curious how you can possibly buy into all that language of "essence".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome
Apr 27 2007, 09:59 AM
  Just believing it does not make it absolute truth.  Nor does simply believing that water is H20 make that an absolute truth.  Proving it does not make it truth either -- the fact that it is true (or not true) is separate from our recognition of that truth (or falsehood).


You could be saying two things here.
1. H2O is another word for water.
2. Water is defined as molecules each of which has 2 atoms of Hydrogen and one of Oxygen.

If you meant definition 1 then it is just simply a matter of a language agreeing on two names for one thing.

But, I think you meant definition 2.
I was taught that IS the correct description of water.

Sure, everything taught is not true.
But science has performed enough experiments to reach a critical mass of certainty that I'll place "Water is H2O" into the category of truth.

Anyone disagree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 27 2007, 10:26 AM


Logic is a property of language

I'm not so sure.

Isn't logic a property of thinking?
Language just describes or tracks thought.

Agreement is key.
It is agreed there are 12 inches in a foot.

This is not really a truth or reality.
This is not out there.
I was made up and agreed with.

Sure saying there are 12 inches in a foot is a true statement, but it is merely a true (or accurate) statement of an agreement.


I think people do not recognize the importance of the idea of agreements.
I think this is because describing agreement is like describing water to a fish.
We just don't get it because we are surrounded by it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 05:04 PM
But, I think you meant definition 2.
I was taught that IS the correct description of water.

Sure, everything taught is not true.
But science has performed enough experiments to reach a critical mass of certainty that I'll place "Water is H2O" into the category of truth.

Anyone disagree?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest it's not true.

My point is that it *is* true, regardless of whether or not we believe it. Water was made up of H2O long before any humans 'proved' it... because the 'proof' is just our realization of something that has been around for a long time.

The same applies to the question of a god. If a god exists, then it exists no matter what anybody thinks. If a god does not exist, then it also does not matter what anybody thinks. It does not matter one bit if I believe (as a religious belief) that god exists, and it doesn't matter if you believe (as a religious belief) that he does not exist; nothing that we think can or will change whether or not there is a god.

Because belief or proof does not create that which we believe in or prove -- they merely describe what we think actually, really is true.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
What the juice do you mean by "logic is a property of language"?

You have already discarded metaphysics, yet here you use what can only be a string of metaphysical term. "language" has no existence apart from electrochemical reactions in brain tissue in a ratiocinating biomachine, "logic" has no existence apart from electrochemical reactions in brain tissue in a ratiocinating biomachine, "property"has no existence apart from electrochemical reactions in brain tissue in a ratiocinating biomachine.

*show* me "logic", *show* me "property", *show* me "language". After all, commonly accepted definitions for "human", "entity", "being", etc are not acceptable to you, why do you think such metaphysical abstractions can be so carelessly tossed about? :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 02:08 PM
Moonbat
Apr 27 2007, 10:26 AM


Logic is a property of language

I'm not so sure.

Isn't logic a property of thinking?

I think you are on the right track. Logic is a process of rational thinking, language is another process of rational thinking. Both are necessary for understanding and communicating *being* (existence) outside of our own existence. Language uses logic (we constantly build on a series of syllogism, metaphors and analogies to describe things); just as logic uses language (whether spoken, written, or symbolic) to communicate. Everything we do to communicate outside our self experience (and how we rationally process the internal experience of externals) is symbolic encoding. It requires both language and logic to do so more or less accurately, yet always imperfectly.

Quote:
 

I think this is because describing agreement is like describing water to a fish.
We just don't get it because we are surrounded by it.

Doesn't matter how you try to describe "water" to a fish. They just won't get it. :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
maybe to get at the point of Kenny's question, "truth" in common usage is a way to reduce responsibility for one's opinions - if they're true then it's not your fault that you have them, you are after all beholden to reality. Otherwise you'd be crazy!

Maybe there's an important difference in how important we believe the concept of "truth" to be in our worldviews and that of others. Personally, certain concepts being "true" and certain concepts being "not true" and my ability to distinguish between them better than everybody else is not an important foundation of my worldview. I see mostly shades of gray and I"m continually amazed at how so many people are so sure about so many things. (And I agree that much of this assuredness is the product of agreement, and that most people don't understand how essentially shaped they are by those cultural factors.)
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Apr 27 2007, 04:27 PM
maybe to get at the point of Kenny's question, "truth" in common usage is a way to reduce responsibility for one's opinions - if they're true then it's not your fault that you have them


Profound observation Horace.



Here's an example that comes to mind:
(How can it be hate when it is absolutely true, and God's will?)
(I am not responsible for my actions - I'm an doing God's work.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Or how about:

God is just an invention of the human mind, a convenient tool to answer unanswerable questions.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 27 2007, 05:45 PM
Or how about:

God is just an invention of the human mind, a convenient tool to answer unanswerable questions.

Perhaps there is hope for you Dewey.

Nothing wrong with religions.
Just be clear about what they are, and what they are not.
Or rather, tell the truth about them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Dewey
Apr 27 2007, 07:45 PM

God is just an invention of the human mind, a convenient tool to answer unanswerable questions.

Like Spackle (tm)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 05:08 PM
I think this is because describing agreement is like describing water to a fish.
We just don't get it because we are surrounded by it.

I think we humans "get" air pretty well, don't we?
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
pianojerome
Apr 27 2007, 09:58 PM
kenny
Apr 27 2007, 05:08 PM
I think this is because describing agreement is like describing water to a fish.
We just don't get it because we are surrounded by it.

I think we humans "get" air pretty well, don't we?

:lol: Nicely put! :thumb:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

What the juice do you mean by "logic is a property of language"?

You have already discarded metaphysics, yet here you use what can only be a string of metaphysical term. "language" has no existence apart from electrochemical reactions in brain tissue in a ratiocinating biomachine, "logic" has no existence apart from electrochemical reactions in brain tissue in a ratiocinating biomachine, "property"has no existence apart from electrochemical reactions in brain tissue in a ratiocinating biomachine.

*show* me "logic", *show* me "property", *show* me "language". After all, commonly accepted definitions for "human", "entity", "being", etc are not acceptable to you, why do you think such metaphysical abstractions can be so carelessly tossed about? 


Deductive logic is just consistency. Inductive logic is something very different but i think most people refer to deductive when they reference "logic". Kenny said ealier that it was a property of thinking but that's only because thinking (of kind where logic is relevent)necessarily uses some kind representation or language.

We can describe the world, we can use symbols in such a way as to capture information. (now people might not actually be using symbols perhaps they can't read or write but they're doing something equivalent, they are creating patterns in their heads and using those patterns to represent the world).

Now in terms of how we are doing that, the answer is to talk about computation and i think ultimately about correlation between different physical systems (i think that translation, the synonymity between symbol manipulation and physical reality is what makes the ability to describe the nature of language... using language, coherent). I don't completely understand how it works. I mean there are plenty of things i don't completely understand, that's the downside of lacking omniscience.

You asked before how i could buy into the essense stuff, the answer is that i don't buy into the essense stuff, the conclusions Plato actualy drew form his cave analogy, all his "ideal" horses, that's all hopeless nonsense. What i accept however is that there may well be epistemological limits in various different ways. The fact that we are necessarily forced to analyse the world via the senses means that some of the things the positivists say have some validity. However i've become a lot more uncertain about that particular limitation because of course we're made of the same stuff as the world, so perhaps the limitations are not as significant as we imagine. I've also come to think that pragmatically this particular kind of philosophising goes nowhere, it's like saying "maybe there are things we can't see, we can't think of, and that cannot be inferred, then we'd never know those things" now even is we gloss over the question of coherence to such statements the thing is you just end up saying "hmm yea ok" and then you go back to doing whatever you were doing, by definition no further progress is possible so you go back to trying to work out the stuff you can actually work out.

Edit: I should point out that i do not think logic has any meaning outside the context of agents capable of describing things.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2