If that is not claiming that verification determines truth, then why call them "truth"?



Incoherent.

Because everyone understands what is meant by this.

At least professional people do.

Obviously you don't.

Too bad.

If "there is no reason whatsoever to conclude that there is no such thing as a true or false belief" Is there a reason to conclude that there is?


And how are things not the way they are?

Are they truth?

Many. I've given one already. It is self-refuting. If that is the case, then it constitutes being a true belief, and therefore contradicts itself. Therefore, it is necessarily false.



I can't make heads nor tails of what this is supposed to mean. Can you re-state it?

If they are correct assignments as the definition requires then yes they are.

That's precisely what we mean by the concept of 'truth'.

We mean that the description that is being referred to as 'truth' correctly describes the state of affairs insofar as well can tell.

That's probably the part that you aren't fully accepting.

When we say that something is 'truth' in mathematics or science it should always been followed by the words, 'in so far as we can tell'.

Those words are assumed to be understood because it's assumed that you understand the definition of truth and how we go about deciding whether or not we have a 'truth'.

~~~~~

In mathematics, mathematicians often get quite cocky about their 'truths' because they have very rigorous ways of verifying that the axioms of mathematics have been satisfied.

In other words, they have very rigorous means of determining that a mathematical description satisfies the axioms of mathematics and thus qualifies as an indisputable 'truth'.

However, some sloppy mathematicians fail to even realize that mathematical truths themselves actually stand upon unprovable axioms.

In fact, if we change the axioms the mathematical 'truths' change.

I've given the popular example in geometry several times where by simply changing the parallel postulate we end up with three totally different geometries; Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic.

All three of those geometries each have their own "truths". But their 'truths' are different from each other.

In Euclidean geometry the 'truth' is that the sum of the angles of any triangle sum to exactly 180 degrees.

In Spherical geometry the 'truth' is that the sum of the angles of any triangle sum to more than 180 degrees.

In Hyperbolic geometry the 'truth' is that the sum of the angles of any triangle sum to less than 180 degrees.

Three different truths. All changed because of an axiom, premise, or postulate was changed.

Of course there are many other differences between these geometries too. But I'm trying to keep the example simple.

There are many different areas within mathematics where this occurs, it's not just in this simple geometry example.

So 'truth' in mathematics even changes depending on how mathematics is defined.

~~~~

So when you ask about a 'truth' in mathematics you better ask for all the details that the 'truth' depends upon.

~~~~

The same is true in the sciences, but obviously things get far more complicated in the sciences.

When given a scientific 'truth' we must also inquire precisely what premises, postulates, and assumptions were made when determining whether this scientific 'truth' is indeed a 'truth'.

~~~~~

In fact, if you are going to demand that science must only call things 'truth' if they can be absolute perfectly established without any assumptions or doubt at all, then science probably wouldn't have any 'truths' to offer.

~~~~

It seems to me that you're just not happy that we have no way to guarantee what descriptions actually correctly match up to reality.

The only thing that I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that you are not going to change that by changing the definition of 'truth'.

Our inability to verify our claims to 'truth' with 100% certainty, has absolutely nothing at all to do with how we have defined the concept.

Can they be false?

Of course they can.

Truth wouldn't be truth if it couldn't be falsified.

Change the description, or change the state of affairs, and what was once a 'truth' has now become a 'falsehood'.

This is why scientist have no problem at all falsifying things that used to be considered truth, and replacing them with more likely truths.

It wouldn't even make sense to speak of truth of you couldn't potentially falsify it.

You wouldn't even need a concept of 'truth' if you couldn't falsify a truth.

That's the whole point to it.

It seems to me that what you are attempting to get at is the actual state of affairs itself.

Can a state of affairs be false?

No of course not! A state of affairs is whatever it is.

But that's not the definition of 'truth'.

Truth is a PROPERTY that is given to a DESCRIPTION, and that property can indeed be recognized to have been misplaced, in which case it becomes falsified.


Look at Webster's dictionary again:

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


The 'truths' of thermodynamics have been changing as that discipline of study becomes more refined.

#3 defines truth right there as 'THE PROPERTY OF A STATEMENT'

~~~~~~~~~

It's a WORKING definition.

It's dynamic.

It's intended to be that way.

~~~~~

If we demanded that all 'truths' were carved in stone, then we'd just have to toss our hands up in the air when asked if we have any 'truths' because we would have NONE.

Like I say, the concept would be totally meaningless. We couldn't use it. We would have no 'truths' and therefore no need to even refer to the idea of truth.

~~~~~

I don't know how much clearly it can be said,...


It's a WORKING DEFINITION.

It's not a stagnant philosophical ideology.

Truth can be false?

You clearly aren't getting it.

Try this,...

Truths can be falsified.

That shows a better understanding of the concept of truth as it is used in the sciences and mathematics.

You are attempting to imagine idealized concepts of truths.

Conditions where every statement that is claimed to be a 'truth' can never be falsified.

However, if you PAY ATTENTION you will find that no philosophy in the history of mankind has ever survived that ideology.

All philosophies ultimately lead to paradoxes if taken far enough.

And what a false truth but a paradox?

~~~~~

You act like everything has to be paradox-free in order to be considered 'logical' but that is CLASSICAL THINKING.

You really need to get past that if you are going to discuss these things with modern people.

~~~~~

It's been explained to you how the human construct of truth works.

It is a man-made concept. It is a man-made definition. It has flaws. It's imperfect just like man is.

So get used to it already.

~~~~~~

You will NEVER come up with a perfectly flawless definition or philosophy of anything. No one has ever been able to achieve that classical dream.

In fact, with the insight gained from Relativity and Quantum Theories we now realize that those old classical notions where misguided to begin with.

We're far better off thinking implicitly rather than explicitly.

We're far better off thinking relativistically than classically.

We're far better off recognizing that the observer cannot be separated from the observed.

The same thing holds true with conceptualization.

We're far better off realizing that our very conceptualization of what we consider to be reality is indeed influenced and affected by our very conceptualization of it.

~~~~~

You keep trying to put your finger on the "Last Tortoise Down".

But there is no "Last Tortoise Down".

Just accept that as a fact/reality, and you'll instantly gain huge insights into the modern way of thinking

So yes, Truth can be False. Paradoxes can indeed occur.

Ever hear of Gabriel's Horn?

It has infinite surface area but finite volume.

So if you use it as a bucket to hold your paint it will only require a finite amount of paint to fill it.

But if you want to paint the inside surface that will require an infinite amount of paint.

Truth can be False, even within our beloved mathematics.

Everything ultimately leads to paradox, without exception.

Without exception.

We can write on cave walls with burnt bark, that does not make the burnt bark the best use of the tools we have avalaible. Likewise with your use of language to set truth out.

It is a straightforward question Abra. Can truth be false?

Everything ultimately leads to paradox, without exception Micheal.

Without exception.



And that includes any idealized philosophies or definitions you think you might be able to come up with as well.

Can truth be false?

I already answered that in a straightforward way.

You're extremely limited classical thinking isn't prepared for my answers.

It's easy to point out the paradoxes in things Micheal.

That's child's play, and totally unimpressive.

This is why the modern world has moved forward into a more relativistic style of thinking.

Apparent paradoxes will always exist.

So get used to it.

Uncomfortable isn't it?

Admit it.

Are you claiming that truth can be false?

I have not claimed that 'truth' can be 'false'

You have stated that very sentence in a way that makes 'truth' and 'false' appear to have some sort of objective absolute reality.

They don't.

That is your misguided notion.

What I have said is that 'truths' can be 'falsified'.

And this works perfectly well within to context of the working definitions that are used for this man-made concept of 'truth'.

So you are the one who is uncomfortable with this because you are attempting treat 'truth' as though it is some sort of absolute ontological object.

It's not.

It's a man-made definition.

A working definition that scientists and mathematicians have been using for centuries and will continue to use far into the future.

You reject all of that. You are attempting to objective truth in some sort of classical absolute sense.

~~~~~

I don't even know why I bother talking with you at all. You clearly can't get past classical thinking at all.

~~~~~

It would only be an uncomfortable idea for someone who thinks classically Michael.

I'm perfectly comfortable with how we define truths.

It's just a matter of understanding the definition is all.

That's all it takes.

It's simple.

By the way, I said that I have not claimed that 'truth' can be 'false'.

However, that dosen't apply to paradoxes.

Paradoxes are indeed paradoxes precisely because they are simultaneously both true and false.

So are you in denial of paradoxes now?

Are you going to try to claim that paradoxes cannot exist?

If you confess that paradoxes can indeed exist, then you too must confess that truth can be false.