Not them, it was me. As I read through, it kept coming into my mind that you want the scientific "true" to apply to everything. It is a nice thought but it won't work in us humans. Because of this belief thing. Belief messes it all up.

We cannot possibly come to grasp our engagement of truth without discussing thought/belief, for that is where truth begins it's life, so to speak.



Yes, and I'm not arguing otherwise. In the mind of the believer all beliefs are held to be true. That is a necessary condition of belief. I believe X means I believe X is true, is the case, is the way things are.

We agree here.



Not all belief is true either Dragoness.

I find no distinction whatsoever between thought and belief, other than historical usage. In and of themselves, they are one in the same thing. That is for another thread however.



Yes. I believe X means I believe X is true, is the case, is the way things are. We agree here. What I'm pointing out is that "being true to the believer", in the believer's mind, and being true are entirely different animals. What I am pointing out is that "being true to the believer" and truth are entirely different animals.



Here, you've agreed. It is quite clear that not all belief is true. It is also quite clear that being engaged in truth presupposition, believing that X is true, does not make it so. Because we know this, we also know that belief is not equal to truth. It follows that anyone who conflates the two by calling their own belief "truth" has wrongfully equated two completely different things.

Here is an example. I believe the earth travels around the sun because I have accepted that scientific information as true. But I can't possibly be 100% certain this is the truth.

According to my personal experience, and observation the sun is the object that is moving across the sky, not the earth around the sun.

Therefore, I have chosen to believe the accepted scientific view rather than to believe my own eyes.

Imagine my surprise if this turned out to be a lie.

****

If the structure of matter began to change due to a change of frequency caused by energy that penetrates what we call "matter" and things started to disappear.... Imagine your surprise to learn that the cup is not on the table anymore.

Especially if you are 100% certain that the cup is on the table.

Well, you were mistaken in what you thought/believed that I wanted.

Thought/belief is the centerpiece in the whole of my philosophy, and at the center of that is truth/reality entwinement. The four are inseparable. Trust is the thread that runs through them all.

Yes, as do I believe the earth travels around the sun. However, the major difference between our views is that I am 100% certain that that is not truth. Rather it is a written thought/belief which corresponds to states of affairs(fact/reality), which obtains and preserves truth as much as we can tell. It is what we call a "true claim", it is what some may call 'scientific truth', but it is not truth itself.

Whatever. You are getting into semantics here and its all related to your whole subject which is how you prefer to define the meaning of "truth."

You know what I mean when I say it is probably "the truth." You, in my opinion are arguing over communication and word definitions.

Its boring and meaningless to me. So I still want to know what your point is.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I understood your position on things. I think you communicate your ideas quite clearly without ambiguity.

I understood Dragoness's views too.

But if Creative isn't taking a classical view, then I have no clue what his view is. I've offered him the classical view and he calls that offer a "strawman argument" that misses his position entirely.

If that's the case, then I have no clue what his position might be either. So I guess I can't agree or disagree with him. I'll just have to acknowledge that I don't understand what he's trying to say. Sounds like classical philosophy to me, but he says no. So I give up.

I understand all three of your positions and mine as well...

Well, if you could find some way to communicate your position better then we could all share in that.

I think his position is that "the truth" is illusive.

If that is it, then I will agree. I have said before that no single individual can know THE TRUTH which would be to know everything.

Well, if that's his position you sure expressed it quite well in a single sentence.

Yeah I agree with that too.

I think most philosophers will agree with that as well. After all, philosophy hasn't really made much progress, if any at all, since the times of the ancient Greeks. So to say that it's illusive is like stating the obvious isn't it?

Communication requires listening. Thus far, there is little evidence that either of you have been engaged in that kind of deliberate and voluntary act.

That is an insult.

I strain my brain trying to listen to you. You are not a good communicator.You are ambiguous, confusing and vague. You do not communicate plainly or simply, which it the best way to be understood.

It is as if you try to come off as being more intelligent than everyone else. Then you imply that they don't listen or that they are not intelligent enough understand you.

You must be very lonely.

What would it take for those claims to be true?

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

You are a broken record.