Philosophical Discussion On Truth

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Sarkus, Dec 19, 2022.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Is 2+2=4 contingent upon
    1+3=4 or
    10-6 = 4 or
    4+0 =4 ?

    If ALL 5 primary senses agree does that equal "truth"?
    "Smells like a duck, looks like a duck, tastes, feels (touch), sounds like a duck = Must be a duck?"
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2023
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Clearly you didn't read up on the meaning of "authority", despite linking to an etymology site. Maybe you ought to go back and read your own link.

    Bizarre to talk about "the universe" as an "authority".

    On the question of truth: what happens when two authorities disagree?

    Your notion of truth seems to be underdetermined.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Whose primary senses?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Hi, James R,

    Their point of view versus how it came to me


    Today is Saturday, tomorrow is Saturday; universe is feminine, money are plural (grammar).


    Debate, war, ...


    Yes, just a day at work: trial and error, trial and error, trial and error...

    === === ===

    The Logical Song ( Lyrics ) Supertramp
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2023
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I meant: what happens to the Truth?

    Are there two truths, when two authorities disagree?

    Is it possible for one authority to be "more correct" than another, in your opinion? Or are we just stuck with different views, none better than any other?
  9. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Ukr**ne: This land is mine.

    Ru**ia: This land is mine.


    Competition is a sin.
    John D. Rockefeller
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2023
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    O.W. Grant:

    I'm curious. Why do you post on sciforums?

    You seem to have no desire to discuss anything with anybody. So, what do you get out of this?
  11. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Hi, James R,

    My first forum was

    One year ago, about the 10th of April, it was attacked and brought down.

    I wrote mainly in "Outside of the box" section for about 2.5 years (~168 posts).

    The posts were about "simple sentence. ..." primarily.

    I was making mistakes - they did not ask questions (with little exceptions).


    This forum is excellent. I write only here.
    /although "simple sentence. ...", as a thread, is on 7 or 8 other forums/

    There will be about 3 or 4 more posts here and then I will be done with forums.


    Things which I write/say do not have to be true.
    They have to be clear and simple (beautiful to me).

    Thank you, James R.
  12. foghorn Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Is one statement that adheres to a self-contained system of truth "contingent" upon another statement that also adheres to that system? I would say both are contingent upon that self-contained system of truth, not to each other. But that may just be playing with semantics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No. That much should be obvious, surely? ALL 5 primary senses can be fooled, quite easily. All senses are fallible. While it is increasingly hard to fool more of them at the same time, do you think it impossible?
  14. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Individually speaking, it's true that I like peach milkshakes more than chocolate. Objectivity has merit on the general playing field ... Across the board. Tangible realities able to be applied to all ...

    Truth isn't so complicated. Can it be verified? If so, it is a truth. Articulating truth's can be difficult with language barrier's, including math, coding, symbols, and words.
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    thinking a little since posting... perhaps I am thinking of "horses for horses" type corroboration.
    Perhaps. Less likely in nature but more so artificially. The likely hood of fooling 5 exactly would be extremely low, I would think.
    I guess I was attempting to refer to a corroborative system of checks. A bit like "truth by consensus" but on a universal scale..

    Years ago here at sciforums I posted a thread about how you might build an objectively true universe using androids and a similar system of corroboration and error rectification. What was true for one android was true for all ( including the environment ) and as you put it a self contained system of truth. (The thread no longer exists according to search...)
    The idea was to explore the possibility a universal truth by consensus thus,

    What if that self contained system of truth was universal?
    Does that make for the possibility of "universal" truth?
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    A "universal" truth, arrived at by consensus, might be what is referred to as an "objective " truth, but it might instead yield a shared "subjective" truth, which is different. If everyone in the universe currently considered strawberries to be delicious, the proposition "strawberries are delicious" would be at least a currently shared subjective truth, not necessarily an objective one. The difference is whether there is a possible perspective, even if not actually held by anyone, where strawberries are not considered delicious. If there is no such perspective possible then it is objective - i.e. independent of perspective.

    So even a universe built by androids wouldn't make it "objectively true" for things where perspective mattered. But if you remove all such things, what remains would be the objective truth within that system.
    Maths is a good example of a system that is, I believe, devoid of perspective. The terms are defined, and the truths are dependent only upon those, including the internal logic. I mean, is there a perspective where 2+2 doesn't =4, assuming the terms are correctly understood and used?

    Logical truths are another. Is there a perspective where "X is X" (the law of identity) is not true?
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Double post
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I see your point... extending a little,
    Could it be objectively stated that the strawberry's existed and is eaten?
    Could it also be stated that the taste of which may be an opinion subjectively derived depending on state of taste receptors, health, mood, perspective etc
    Is it objectively true that "opinion" will always be subjective as it implies an individual perspective? Just as is the use of language in an attempt to describe or otherwise define such a perspective?

    yes I can see how math would be so...
    As long as opinion is not involved and the rules are uniformly applied.
    ahhh ..this was the point of that thread I mentioned where the two words objective and subjective lose distinction. The universe is subjective to it's creator but objective to it's inhabit-ors. "God" creates subjectively, mankind experiences objectively except in matters of opinion and deception, self or other wise as he takes on what I call the god perspective, was the tentative conclusion.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2023
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I think it would be objectively true that what are described by some as "strawberries" have existed, and have been consumed, yes. This proposition is independent of perspective. Even if some are unaware of what strawberries are, it does not alter the truth value of the proposition. Their subjective view would be "What are you talking about?" etc

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes, I would say so.
    It depends how one defines "opinion". If one merely means a proposition one believes is true but based on incomplete, or in the absence of, fact or knowledge, then that proposition might indeed be true for all, irrespective of perspective, and the "opinion" is deemed an "opinion" due to ignorance of its objective status.
    Others might define "opnion" as a subjective viewpoint, cf. "fact" when it is objective. If this is the case then "opinion" would always be subjective.

    If used without clear distinction, confusion can arise, for sure.
    Not sure I follow. Manking experiences mostly subjectively, I'd have thought. The universe/the underlying reality behaves objectively - hence the phrase "objective reality". I am not sure it can do much else, can it. But mankind experiences through things (senses etc) personal to them.
    But maybe I have misunderstood you?
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  20. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Sorry for butting in, just wanted to give my 2p.

    Hallucinations fool your senses but not all at the same time. For example you might hear sound differently, like what the people are talking about on TV(What did he say?), and drink a tea and taste tea. A rare hallucination is olfactory which effects your sense of smell, again no visual/sound hallucinations.

    Drugs might do it.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Hey Sarkus! Good thread! I missed it earlier because I was angry (not at you) and kind of avoiding Sciforums. So I missed out on your very good thread. (My fault.)

    The way that I look at it, there are objective states of affairs, things that exist regardless of whether any sentient being is aware of them and regardless of what any sentient being thinks about them. Examples might include 'geological' features and events on Mars, Titan, or a billion (to the billionth power) exoplanets. I call these states of affairs 'objective facts'. Describing and understanding them is the province of the natural sciences.

    Obviously there are problem cases, such as abstract facts such as those found in mathematics or the laws of physics. There arguably might be social or psychological facts that depend crucially on what people think. There are potential facts such as fragility. A fragile object is subject to breakage when dropped, even if it is never dropped. There are possibilities and all kinds of modal stuff.

    And truth, as I see it, is a property of propositions. It is a property of how we think or speak about facts. Explaining what that truth-property is has proven difficult. Generally speaking, I'm inclined to accept a correspondence theory of truth in most cases. Explaining precisely what propositions are and how a proposition can correspond to a fact is difficult, but it's the best I've got at the moment.

    Yes. There are metaphysical questions (what is reality?) and epistemological questions (how can beings like us know what is real?). Assuming that truth is correpondence of our propositions with reality, how can we ever know that such a correspondence exists and truth pertains? Wouldn't that require some kind of "God's-eye view" able to perceive the supposed correspondence from outside, so to speak, so as to judge it?

    Lots of people speak as if that was the case. I'm not convinced though.

    Sure. Typically we are biased towards believing things that we want to be true. That's the human condition I guess.

    Mathematical and some of the other abstract truths might arguably be better understood as coherence than correspondence. But I'm pretty solidly in the correspondence camp, I guess.

    That might conceivably be how mathematical truth works.

    My own tendency is to deny that moral propositions express moral truths. Mainly because I don't believe that objective moral facts exist. That being said, one can arguably express truths about what individuals or particular groups of people say and do regarding morality. Their speech and behavior might constitute objective facts to which propositions might correspond.

    But ultimately, when we ask whether whatever this individual or group says is 'good' really is good, I don't think that there's any truth to the matter. Our judgments in that regard are more a matter of our own feelings and intuitions. It might be possible to hypothesize about how these innate moral intuitions evolved in humans (evolutionary ethics is popular these days) so as to promote people working as social groups, but that still doesn't address whether what has evolved is really right and good.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2023
    Sarkus likes this.

Share This Page