I would like to attempt to keep this one a little more focused than usual. I mean usually a thread meanders here and there, however, this one is about epistemic criterion; in particular - what would it take for a claim to be true. I do not think that there is a universally applicable answer which would satisfy all statements/claims.

Alright, after rereading the OP, it seems to be lacking some spark, as it were. I mean, perhaps an example would help things along. I'll resort to the classic, although we need not limit the kinds of statements being assessed here.

The cup is on the table.

What would it take for that claim to be true?

we would have to look at the evidence. and however since there is no cup or table described it cannot be true.

So 'The cup is on the table' is a true statement if, and only if, we look to see?

even if you look to see it could be a false statement

Could it be...

That such a circumstance would only be true...

if when we look.

the cup is there.

Agreed. So what did you mean by we must look at the evidence? I took that to be an answer to the question in the OP, i.e. "What does it take for a claim/statement to be true". It seems that our looking is insufficient for that.

Howzit bruddah?



It seems that way, however, I'm questioning whether or not our looking makes a difference in whether or not the statement is true. I mean, wouldn't it be true if the cup is on the table regardless of our checking?

Of course...

Yet we would not KNOW this...

Therefor it is not an ABSOLUTE truth without some form of verification...

Since you use definite articles ("the cup", "the table") without a definite context, we can't know if it is true or false unless we have a way to observe it.

Indeed, we would not know. However, even a verified claim can later turn out to be false. History of science confirms this. Therefore, verification cannot be equated to truth either. I'm not sure "absolute" adds much clarity, although I can think of some statements that are true without exception.

I agree that we cannot know if the statement is true without observation. However, it does not follow that the statement cannot be true without. I assert that it is true(or not) regardless of whether or not we look.

This would require the existance of mutiple 'truths'.

One that exists as a truth(or not-truth) but we do not 'know' its truth (or not-truth).

and one that exists as a truth (or not-truth) and we have verified its truth/not truth.

One that was a verified truth but proves to be a not-truth in subsequent 'measurements'.

an absolute not-truth.

an absolute truth.

all in a nice neat little rainbow.

with a chocolate eclair on top... and a pot O' gold at each 'end'.

So, verification is insufficient. Obviously stating it alone is also. Is the statement true, if and only if, it obtains by virtue of corresponding to fact/reality?

Well, if you are making a statement about something that exists, yes. (most philosophies accept that "existence exists" as axiomatic, and I also presuppose this)

If you wanted to make a statement about something more abstract (viz. "adultery is immoral"), you would have to first explain all your presuppositions, methodology, and so on.

There is also the truth that is true now.

Yet not true now.

or now...

but it might be true now.

depending upon when you measure now.

AB,

I not sure what it is that you're calling "a truth", nor am I clear about why you think that "multiple truths" are required as a result of verification being insufficient for truth.

"Existence exists" is meaningless and reminds me of Ayn Rand. I despise Randian philosophy.



Well of course, but we're discussing what it takes for a statement to be true.

"Adultery is immoral" would be a true statement if, and only if, adultery is immoral.

"Truth" has as many meaning as there are humans upon the earth.

Each as a concept of 'truth' that is measured in the ammount that was measured unto them at birth.

What you see as 'truth' may in truth be a not-truth to many other humans...

each in their own measure.

Perhaps I simply do not understand your concept of 'truth'.

If a thing is 'true' reguardless of verification it is not necessary to consider its 'truth'... it simply is.

Humans measure truth as they believe.

and are quite capable of 'fixing' a 'truth' so others may be 'guided' into accepting it as a truth.

and thereby verifying the importance of ego of the one so fixing.

Truth then becomes a matter of knowledge.

and 'truth' also then becomes shrouded in the 'language' used to describe it, frame it, and feed it back so that others accept the framers version of it.