Speak for yourself.

I always speak for myself. If you can pass judgement on me, I guess I can do the same.

I'm certainly on page with that.

I prefer to avoid the term 'belief' altogether because people do tend to place far too much restrictions on that term. Like if you claim to 'believe' something that means that you are 100% certain of it.

If that's the way they are going to treat that word, then I'd prefer to just avoid it altogether. I'll just say that I accept certain things are more likely than others and leave it at that.

So for someone to label my acceptance of something as a "belief" would be on their head. I've already voiced my view of preferring not to use that term (at least not in an extreme sense). Although, I confess that I do use the term on occasion simply because I have been socially conditioned to use the term when I actually mean, "I accept that there's a high probability that something may be true".

That's all I mean when I use the term "belief". If anyone else wants to give the word a stronger semantic restriction than this, then I can only say that I'm not in agreement with their usage of the term. And just leave it at that.

I prefer to discuss with people who are open to exchanging ideas and views. (i.e. people who are interested in actual communication) If all they are going to do is nit-pick on the semantics of every word demanding that I adhere to their semantic extremism, then what's the point in attempting to converse with them? Clearly they aren't interested in understanding.

Understanding is a two-way street.

How true.

I noticed that myself. A few posts back someone was speaking for you.

Hmmmmmm? How ironic.

Be impeccable with your word.
Don't take anything personally.
Don't make assumptions.
Always do your best.

The topic is truth.

Creative are you becoming a preacher now?

No, the topic was the question "Is Truth Subjective?"

That question itself is vague.

Of course some truth are indeed entirely subjective.

Was today a beautiful day?

The answer to that question will be different for everyone and will obviously be quite subjective.

So there we already have one example of a "Truth" that is indeed subjective.

So the answer to the question "Is Truth Subjective" is clearly yes, at least some truths are indeed entirely subjective.

~~~~~~

Now it could be argued that some truths appear to be quite objective. Especially the truths concerning the laws of macro physics.

I personally feel that the laws of macro physics do indeed appear to be quite objectively true, insofar as we can tell. Clearly there are exceptions which we usually chalk up to "missing information".

We exercise FAITH that the vast majority of experiments can be trusted and the few "outliers" can be ignored as having an explanation, if we only knew what it was.

~~~~

But then we move into the realm of Relativity and once again see that there are many "truths" that are indeed observer-dependent (which is the same as being subjective). One could argue, (and many people do argue) that from the "point of view" of the universe as a whole these are still "objective truths"

But then we need to rephrase the question, or break it into two parts.

1. "Is truth for individual observers subjective?"


2. "Is truth for the cosmos objective?"

In terms of General Relativity I would say that the answer to both of these questions would be "yes".

~~~~~

Moving on into the domain of quantum physics things get far less clear.

It's not even clear that truth for the cosmos at a quantum level is objective. It may very well not be objective at all. It may very well be entirely dependent upon probabilities as the theory suggestions.

One could argue that if probabilities are the rule, then probabilities themselves are "objective truths". But that becomes a real play on words doesn't it?

If the outcome of an event is truly subject entirely to probability then does it truly have any coherent meaning to say that it's an objective event?

To say that "Probability is an objective truth" is basically placing the entire concept in quicksand.

~~~~~~

I think the whole topic of truth in term of seeking an absolute answer face the very same problem as the problem of tortoises holding up the Earth.

What is the LAST tortoise down standing on?

That what we'd need for truth to be "objective" in an absolute sense.

Our individual truths are clearly subjective - (i.e. the truth of whether or not we feel that today was a beautiful day).

Our macro laws of physics truths, may be objective within the domain where Classical Physics holds.

But when we move beyond that domain we run into the relative truths of Relativity.

Moving again into the domain of the quantum world we move into the idea that truths may be ultimate probabilistic. And what would that mean?

So when we ask "Is truth Subjective?", of even if we ask "Is Truth Objective?", we need to ask the domain of applicability of the question.

Are we asking about some sort of "idealized" and "imagined" concept of an absolute truth as in the "Mind of God". Something that is absolutely true above all possible domains of limitations?

Like I say, that could only be found in the "Last Turtle Down", or the "Highest God Up".

Otherwise, were do we place a limit on the domain of applicability?

The Macro Classical Physical World?

Why there? We already know of domains that go beyond the limitations of Classical Physics.

So where is the domain of applicability reside for these questions of "truth".

I think you need to clarify your domain of applicability if you're going to pursue these questions in a meaningful way.
Which "truth" are we seeking to understand?

I think it was good to get on target.

If we're going to ask, "What is Truth?"

We need to address precisely the domain of applicability of the question.

What "truth" are we talking about?

Like I say, what is the TRUTH to the question, "Did you have a good day today?"

The true answer to that question is highly subjective.

In fact, the answer to that question is not only subjective, but it's also relative.

I was thinking about that question today actually. And my "truths" for that question vary depending on the domain of applicability.

Was today a good day for me?

Well the "truth" is that is was a good day in comparison with many other days.

However, in comparison with some days it wasn't so hot.

So the truth value for the question itself requires asking, "Compared with what?"

Truth values themselves may be relative.

Obviously people who are thinking in terms of Classical Physics only are considering the ideal situation. Given enough restraints there can only be ONE TRUE ANSWER. Like the freezing temperature of pure water at sea level pressure on Earth is about 32 degrees F.

That seems like a fairly hard-core ONE TRUE OBJECTIVE ANSWER. But that answer already required a whole lot of restraints.

Maybe instead of asking "Is truth Subjective?" we should be asking, "How many restraints must be given before a truth can be said to be dependable?"

And that brings up the obvious question concerning Quantum Mechanics. Can restraints even be given beyond mere probabilities in the quantum world? If not, then clearly any "truths" that exist in the quantum world must also be at least as undependable (or uncertain) as the quantum limitations.

In fact, that's the very notion of complementarity or (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The fact, that "Truths" cannot be pinned down below as certain amount of uncertainty.

Such truths can hardly be said to be "Objective". They may not actually be quite "Subjective" either. Perhaps they are simply "Uncertain" and that's all that can be said. But an uncertain "truth" is no truth at all.

So the domain of applicability plays a very large role in the question of "What is Truth?"

JB:


Instead you have developed a belief which could be based on a couple of things
1. the value you place on human life which indicates that you believe that there ARE OTHERS that coexist with you and that you don’t want to hurt them.
2. OR the value you place on your own well-being which still indicated that you believe that there ARE OTHERS that coexist with you and they have the power to make you suffer in some way.

Either way, you hold these believe based on 100% confidence that they match reality: They are no opinion, therefore what you have said does NOT match reality so it has been falsified here.


Abra:


JB would, and has, argued here that there are no such laws and that you utter only opinion. She says that you understand her, well so does creative and so do I but none of us, including you, Abra, appear to agree with her.

JB, does that mean that Abra does not understand you either?

.
Abra:


I can’t say I understand your confusion. In this thread we have been discussing reality, which you have aptly indicated are those things that we know (in your examples, through science) which match up to reality.

Whether a person can actually experience weightlessness or space flight is not reason not accept the reality surrounding the science which makes those things possible. We are intelligent and creative beings and with critical thought processes and abstract creativity we can internalize knowledge and base beliefs upon it without actually experiencing it.

Because every true statement must have a state of affairs making that statement a truth.

Now we're getting somewhere prashant.

--

So, we agree that true statements match up to states of affairs. If we call the true statement "a truth" what do we call the matching up, the correspondence bewteen claims and state of affairs?

Once an angel told about a place to a poor farmer in his farm where he can get plenty of gold.

To the exact spot farmer started digging but he didnt get the gold there.Due to excessive exertion & frustration the poor farmer died soon.His spouse sold that farm.The person who purchased that farm found gold ore where the farm was digged.

Wasnt the statement of angel TRUE?
Wasnt that statement MEANINGLESS for the farmer?

Di,

Where have I ever given you the impression that I am solipsistic? What do you think I mean by the term "opinion? Why do you assume that I am not aware of the laws of this world/reality?

When you play any game, the game has rules. I am completely aware of the rules of this game we are calling reality.

When I say "opinion" I mean point of view. Every person living has a unique and individual point of view. There is no single omnipresent point of view that knows everything. Don't think "opinion" think POINT OF VIEW.

"Point of view" includes subjective evaluation/perceptions or what you think of as an opinion.

Not all opinions are agreed on, but many of them are. I agree that guns can kill people. That is an opinion and an agreement. Because it corresponds with this reality, it has also been labeled a fact. I agree with that label. I have no objection to calling a thing a fact. I am an agreeable and reasonable person.

The only problem we are having is semantics.

If you want to believe that I have 100% confidence in something, that is your belief and your opinion, but you are not really in a position to judge the percentage of my confidence about anything.

Your examples are silly, so I won't address them. I hope this post clears things up, although I have my doubts it will.

Do you seek to understand, or is your intent to argue and win, or just an attempt to falsify my claims?

The problem is always misunderstanding. I am not trying to debate with anyone. If you seek to be gratified by claiming victory in a debate then, I will forfeit the debate to you and you may win by default.

But if you or Creative want to have a conversation with the intent to understand something about me, then I am happy to oblige.

But as Creative has claimed, its not about ME.

All answers are subjective in the trivial sense that they all come through a subject. However, we need to keep in mind here that it does not follow from the fact that everything comes through a subject, that truth is subjective. There are several different tacks that could be used here. This question represents a very common platform for those who hold that truth is subjective. It is also perfect example to show why the terms "subjective" and "objective" have no place in a discussion about truth. Let me explain...

You're presupposing that each person's answer to the question "Was today a beautiful day" is honest. That presupposition make all the difference in the world.

The key here is had by our looking at what it is that makes the answers truthful. The answers, if they are truthful, will correspond to the personal taste of the speaker. If the person thinks/believes that it was a beautiful day, but they answer in the negative, then they would be giving an untruthful answer; their answer would no be true of their own personal tastes. Because we know that much, we can also know that the answer itself cannot establish it's own truth. It is truthful IFF it corresponds to the personal preferences/tastes of the speaker. This holds good because one could give a false answer to the question. Such answers would not be true. The ones who do not think/believe that it was a beautiful day, have a truthful answer in the negative, if they are being honest. The ones who do think/believe that it was a beautiful day will offer a truthful answer in the affirmative, if they are being honest. Others will answer somewhere in the middle of the two.

So, by carefully parsing out the situation, we can clearly see that the question itself elicits an aesthetic judgment, and in doing so it asks the listener to put forth their own personal preferences/tastes. The answers are true IFF they correspond to the personal preferences/tastes of the speaker. Therefore, the answers are not true of the kind of day it was. Conversely, the answers are true of the people's personal preferences/tastes. "Beautiful" has personal meaning, and each person has their own idea of what constitutes being beautiful. Therefore, the answers are true IFF they correspond to the personal preference/taste of the speaker, not because they correspond to the kind of day it was.



If, and only if, we conflate a true claim with that which makes it so. Abra, your response calls a truthful answer, or a true statement "a truth", or "truth". Doing such a thing is very very common, but it leads to needless confusion. That is because it muddles up the necessary distinction between a true claim and that which makes the claim true. There are much better ways to set these things out, ways which do not confuse truth and personal preference/taste, ways which do not confuse a true claim and truth, ways which show what truth does, rather than what people do with the term "truth". The beginning of the post has layed this out rather nicely. In closing, I'll offer what I find to be a much more powerful description of the example you've given.

People possess personal preferences/tastes. These differ from individual to individual. We call those subjective preferences/tastes. Those personal preferences/tastes are products of and/or represent the subject's mental states of affairs. So, the existence of those constitutes being a fact. The different answers to the question "Was today a beautiful day?" obtain truth soley by virtue of corresponding to those states of affairs that we call personal preferences/tastes. So we can see, once again, that the answers can be all true even though they seemingly conflict with one another. That is not because truth is subjective. Rather, that is so because each claim obtains it truth value by virtue of corresponding to fact/reality.

No. The statement was not true. The farmer could not get plenty of gold.

No. That statement was not meaningless to the farmer, for he set out to find exactly what the statement claimed.

TRUE statements seems MEANINGLESS for you too bro

I think that I understand much of the confusion here. It is based upon a fundamental conflation between science and philosophy, and a misunderstanding of what 'classical philosophy' is grounded upon. It also wrongfully presupposes that QM somehow denies the knowledge that led up to itself, and is still being used with great success to this day. It was close enough, and without it QM has no legs. So using QM to deny the knowledge that it is built upon, is to climb up a ladder, stand upon the top rung and kick the ladder out from underneath your own feet.



Ironically enough this is all about truth and the role that it played in 'classical philosophy'.

The physical sciences employs correspondence theory. Theoretical physics depends largely upon both, correspondence theory and coherence theory. Classical philosophy(rationalists) held to coherence theory and largely depended upon the existence of self-evident truths/axioms. That is the philosophy which argued for the existence of God with various methods, all of which depended upon and exploited the notion of logical possibility: ie the best of all possible worlds, the prime mover, the causeless cause, etc.

Classical philosophy(empiricists) held more to correspondence theory, and based their thoughts upon knowledge about the world itself claiming that we could not know about that which may or may not exist beyond space, beyond time, beyond the reaches of our own knowledge which comes from experience.

Kant very successfully broke both molds, and changed metaphysics forever. That is why he is considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time. That is why his works are still the backbone of philosophy. Modern philosophy, in some way shape or form, depends upon Kant.

That was the break away point from 'classical'. Kant showed how all human knowledge is necessarily limited to that which appears in time and space. He also showed how and why it is necessary to presuppose that objects exist in and of themselves, but our knowledge of those objects is limited to our own mental constructs. He even went as far as to claim that causality was not an inherent property of the universe, but rather that it is invented in the mind and applied to things in order for us to make sense of them.

So, to me it seems rather odd, for one to claim that another's philosophical pursuits are classical, and implying that that is a negative and all, when their own position depends entirely upon the most classical notion of all... logical possibility.

Very odd, indeed.

The scientific method is grounded upon correspondence theory. Correspondence is revealed through observation, and clear precise meaning being given to the descriptive terms.

Another major source of confusion here on these forums being the difference between a casual register, like that which most natural language speakers use, and a formal register, like that which demands that certain terms mean specific things. These strict definitions make and keep the distinctions that are crucial to understanding not only what often goes on in these discussions, but the position being put forth to begin with.

Rather than setting out a bunch of emoticons and making bald assertions, how about supporting your own claims?



The claim is false. The reason it is false is because it purports that the farmer can get plenty of gold. It is a claim about the farmer's ability, but it is quite clear that the farmer could not get plenty of gold... in fact he died trying.

So, what's the problem?