This thread is about truth and the role that it plays in thought/belief. Many people, myself included, hold that truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Let's look at how this works...

When we say that X is true, we mean that that's the way that things are, that X is the case, that X is an accurate representation of reality, that X matches up to the facts at hand... in short, that that corresponds to fact/reality.

This makes truth 'objective'; as in it is not determined within the subject's thoughts, but rather that our thoughts only claim to be matching up to the way things are. All belief necessarily presupposes it's own truth. I believe X, means I believe X is true. However, we can clearly see that belief is insufficient for truth. If truth were entirely determined by belief, then we would have two separate people believing diametrically opposing things and they both would be true. We already know that X cannot be both true and false simultaneously. So, if person A holds X, and person B holds not X, then at least one of them is wrong, and possibly both. Again, this shows that truth is not a matter of belief, and that belief presupposes it's own truth/reality correspondence.

I'll leave it here for now...

Questions, remarks?

What if we live in an observer created reality, where you are ejected into a parallel dimension every-time you believe something that does not match your current reality? HUH? HUH?


Prove I am wrong!

One cannot prove a falsehood. However, the pragmatist within me says why invoke other universes in order to explain the universe?

One step back.

If the observer created reality is true then that description corresponds to the way things are.

No problem.

Bushido,

What do you think about correspondence theory?



I mean, is it plausible? Do we not always correct our past mistakes by virtue of showing(or at least believing) that the correction itself offers a more accurate correspondence to the way things are than the past belief?

Oh I completely agree, I was being cheeky, I have just started reading a bit about post-positivism which deals with much the same issues.

I find the "aesthetic" appeal of removing the capital "T" from truth to be a step in the right direction. Post-positivism? Never heard of it. Although, I am heaviy influenced by the logical positivists... minus their take on morality.

1) I think you mean "You cannot prove a negative"

2) You can prove a negative just as far as you can prove a positive. "I think, therefore I am" proves that I exist and it also proves that I don't not exist, at the very least to me.

Yes, one cannot prove a negative...

That is what I meant.



This does not seem right Spider.

Unless absense of absolute evidence is evidence of absolute absense.

Did you even read my example? Would you care to respond to it?

Okay, don't take my word for it. Google it.

Justify your claim Spider.

How does "I exist" prove both, that you exist, and that you do not exist?

The claims cannot both be true. It is one, the other, or neither.

I will retract the claim about not being able to prove a negative. I mean, epistemologically speaking - we can prove that X is not Y. If that constitutes proving a negative.

I was initially thinking that one cannot prove that X does not exist. Are you arguing otherwise? If so, in light of the OP could you justify such a thing?

You are misunderstanding what I posted.

"I think, therefore I am" proves that I exist and it also proves that I don't not exist, at the very least to me.

Positive: I exist
Negative: I don't exist

Key word is "NOT", it is a statement that the negative "I don't exist" has been disproven.

If you prove the positive "I exist" then that means "I don't exist" is false or "I don't not exist".

Mostly revisions to positivism by Mr Popper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism

"I exist" and "I don't not exist" is the same claim.

I did misread it. My apologies.

"I don't not exist" is not the same as "I don't exist". We know that a double negative in language is wrongful speaking, and in math it equals a positive... therefore no negative has been proven.

If "I Exist" is true, then "I don't exist" is false. It's not that hard. I'm done talking about it. Sometimes you guys just look to argue even when you are clearly wrong. If you are that lonely get a dog.

Put it another way...

I exist is a positive claim(X). The negative is I do not exist(not X).

"I don't not exist" is "I do not not exist" and is nothing more than "not not X". "Not not X" equals "X".

Agreed. If "I exist" is true, then "I do not exist" is false. But, how does this prove a negative?



Alright, let's go back to what you've already written...



Disproving a negative is not proving a negative. The negative is "I don't exist". It is not "I do not not exist." That is a positive claim, and is the same thing as "I exist."



No argument here Spider. However, "I exist" is a positive. "I don't exist" is a negative. "I do not not exist" is also a positive. You have not proven a negative here.

The only negative is "I don't exist" and that is false(disproven).

"We hold these truths to be self evident!"

That all (wo)men are not created equal, but all have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



Ah well, most of the ideology was on point.