^^^ read this then your posts on last 2 pages. You lost focus.

Try again. How about you answer the questions?

What is the difference between a true belief and a false one? What is the difference between truth and belief?

It is all delusion


There is no true or false belief...only belief ... every belief you have was true for you in that moment that you decide to act upon it.

... you may change your mind later but that doesn't make it a false belief ... it makes it an outdated one.


Creative

Then Truth is moot and unknowable without interpretation. Interpretation is personal.



Exxman


hi Exxman - my shoes are moody huh?

I'm putting the claims being made about truth to the test of logic and reason. I'm doing philosophy. If you see that as an attack on people, may I suggest that this thread is not for you. There are others who feel that way as well. Detaching emotion from belief is imperative when discussing truth. Everyone thinks that their belief is true. There's little that I can do about it when one interprets the questioning of their claims as an attack on their person. It is also rather telling that you've focused upon my person more than you've focused upon the topic... three posts in a row.



Now, regarding our discussion of truth...

You claimed that you understand truth. You've laid out what you meant. I've shown where that account fails to differentiate between truth and belief, between truth and personal perspective. It is by virtue of the fact that belief can be false that we know belief is not equal to truth, yet you've equated the two. It is by virtue of the fact that we know that personal perspective can be wrong, that we know that personal perspective is not equal to truth, yet you'v equated the two. Truth cannot be wrong/false perspective and belief can.

Therefore, it only follows that truth is neither.

You know better.

Nobody said that the methods of verification determine truth.

Perhaps that's your misunderstanding right there.

All we've done is define what we mean by truth.

If we have incorrectly determined that a statement satisfies this definition of truth when in fact it hasn't, then we have simply made an error is all.

That doesn't mean that the definition of truth itself is logically flawed or wrong. It just means that we have incorrectly evaluated the truth value of a particular statement or description.

So your objections to the actual definition of truth don't even apply to methods of verification.

All you are complaining about is that we can never know for sure whether we have ever made a correct determination.

But everyone is already aware of this.

That doesn't make the foundational definition 'wrong'. All that shows is that we cannot be certain whether we have ever correctly evaluated a statement or description.

In fact, mathematics solves this problem by using limited axioms. If they have a statement that can be shown to have totally satisfied all of their axioms then they proclaim that statement to be ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because it satisfies all of their finite lists of axioms ABSOLUTELY.

Of course, their axioms themselves may not have an correspondence to any fact/reality. The axioms themselves are simply accepted to be "TRUTHS". In other words, they are accepted to be correct statements of the "state of affairs".

In fact, in pure mathematics the only "State of Affairs" that needs to be satisfied is the foundational axioms of the formalism.

If you've shown that, then you can safely conclude that your statement is indeed a mathematical "truth" because you have shown that your statement correctly describes the "State of Affairs".

~~~~~

In the physical science you can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your description of reality has indeed correctly described a physical state of affairs.

This is why scientific 'truths' are often regarded with some level of suspicion.

They might not actually be "truths".

These descriptions of reality may have been labeled as "Truths" when in fact, that determination had been incorrect.

~~~~~~

There are no logical inconsistencies in any of this.

Truly.

This has been a bait thread all along.

He starts a thread asking "Is Truth Subjective?"

And then blatantly ATTACKS anyone who suggests that it is.

He screams that they have fatal logic, they are all wrong, and that only his views on truth are the "Gospel Truth".

We may as well be in the Religion Forums having someone attempting to proselytize their religion at us.

Oxford Dictionary

1. The acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without proof

2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion



Mirriam-Webster

1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2. a conviction of truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based upon examination of the evidence


American Heritage

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.



By definition, belief presupposed an acceptance or a conviction of something as being true.

That does nothing to support the position that there is no true belief or false belief Art.

'I believe X' means I believe X is true. IFF X is true, then it is a true belief.

You have.

I know what you are driving at Creative. And I know the pseudoscience of 'false belief' ... and it's basis in faulty reasoning...



The language is goofy....



I have yet to come up with an example of something I would label a false belief in my own experience ... that's all

Trivial. That doesn't make truth subject to interpetation, it makes understanding truth subject to interpretation. Of that, there is little doubt. Interpretation can be wrong, truth cannot.



Truth isn't.

Psuedoscience of false belief?



Goofy language?



Believing that there is no such a thing as false belief is an example of a false belief.

I am pretty sure you missed my point ... nevermind ...

No I haven't.

I said that they determine "truth values" that we assigned to descriptions. And once those descriptions have been accepted as being true, we call them "truths".

And this is in completely accordance with how humanity uses these terms. I've already shown this using Webster's Dictionary.

From Webster's Dictionary:

2. a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>

3. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

~~~~~

It is understood within the overall context of these definitions and processes.

~~~~

It's really quite simple.

Your constant efforts to attack this can only be a reflection of your own hostility and antagonism toward the status quo.

I have no interest in your personal issues and contempt for the way that humans have defined our man-made concepts of things such as truth.

By all means Art. Make it. You claimed that there was no such thing as true or false belief. I'm interested in seeing that laid out. Saying that we believe it to be true at the time we form it is a given. Changing it later does not necessarily make the original one false. That is a given. However, I find no reason whatsoever to conclude that there is no such thing as a true of false belief.

If that were the case, then it constitutes a true belief about the way things are.

Truth value is not truth Abra.

Lie.