Are you saying that nothing is nothing?

'If truth is a matter of belief/consideration, how do you distinguish it from opinion or a lie?'

Well that is a moot question. First, all communications can be considered to be 'opinions. albeit some are more justified than others. The only way to evaluate communications as to their veracity is to determine whether they are a smooth addition to one's model of the world and the degree to which one trusts the originator of the communication.

There is no simple and foolproof method.

If truth is not a matter of belief/consideration how do you distinguish it from opinion or a lie?

Well enjoy! :)

I have no idea, I don't follow baseball.
What is your point?
Are you trying to claim that consensus equals undeniable certainty?

I am not sure what you mean by 'verifiable performative function'.

Of course 'similarly situated observers' cannot be compelled to 'assent'.

You seem to be assuming that all people must see the world in the same way that you do. This is unjustifiable. While there may be considerable consensus about the way the world appears to be, this cannot be justifiably extrapolated to the claim that everyone always sees the world the same way. All you know is the way you see the world.

As for your example, this might well fall into the consensus category; but your conclusion cannot be logically proven, at least not without the inclusion somewhere of a human judgement, which necessarily makes the conclusion subjective and not proven.

Well , the word 'truth' would seem to have 2 uses:

1. If a person considers something to be 'true', then they would have no need to investigate the data relating to it any more and can simply use that 'truth' if and when circumstances merit it.

2. If a person communicates that they consider something to be 'true', there is an implied invitation or encouragement for the receiver of the communication to believe it too.

Yes people have believed and indeed still do believe things that other people think are not true. And even people have believed things to be true and later decided that they are not true.

There is no logical inconsistency in this.

I am not sure what you mean by 'psychological state' or are you just trying to distance the concept of 'truth' about the world from human judgement? An impossible and futile task in my opinion.

IMO truth is best viewed as a label for an idea, perhaps expressed as a statement or proposition, that one believes to be an accurate representation of the world.
PS I label the above as 'true'.

I think what InPitzotl is referring to is the rational calculations that take place 'below' the level of language.

The 'lowdown' on the beautiful theory can be found in my book 'The pattern paradigm', but you won't like it. lol.

But the beauty of it is that you could never tell that it was 'false'.

Instead one has to rely on a more pragmatic test.. ie does it work? or at least does it work for you?

You would introduce them to the ideas in a way that they can understand and without telling a lie. eg 'Daddy did a bad thing and has been taken away by authorities and locked up. We can visit him once a month' If asked what bad thing he did, you could say 'he hurt someone very badly'... etc

Well then it follows that the Sunday schools are acting immorally.

Children are impressionable, and they are trying to understand the world and how it works. If people, who supposedly care for them, are feeding them lies then this will distort their view of the world and to their detriment.

Creationism is a story, the bible tells a story. It is fine to tell children stories, so long as they are not posed as factual or true.

You can base moral behaviour on stories if you want, there is no particular problem with that, Aesop's fables are a good place to start as are the stories in the bible.

Lying to children is always immoral.

What form would your 'education for good moral judgement' take?

If there is no god there is no problem, at least not a philosophical one.

It really depends upon the size of the community. Within a small community people would undoubtedly act in co-operation with other people without any need of formal laws and enforcement. But in larger communities where people can be anonymous in regard to other people, then laws and enforcement are essential for a harmonious community.

OK perhaps I misunderstood you.

Certainly as part of ones model of the world is the idea that there is a real world out there that one can learn about and improve one's model.

You are referring to the common or normative usage of the word 'true', in which case I would agree with you. But it is IMO a naive usage. It works fine for most people, but on closer examination for philosophy, it is plain that one only knows a model of the world rather than the 'actuality of reality'.

It is akin to whether one believes the Sun goes around the Earth or not. For most people the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth works fine (or at least it did in the past) but on closer examination for the purposes of astronomy one learns that that model is ineffective.

It is the interpretation of the statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and its correspondence to one's model of the world that enables it to be labelled as true.

The statement itself consists of a string of alphanumeric characters and has no direct correspondence to the world except through its interpretation.

Because if you choose to believe something for which there is no rationality, then you leave the rational world and enter a fantasy world.

And there is no rationality that can show how any statement can have a direct correspondence to the 'world of actuality'.

It doesn't matter that I might not know what the actuality is. When I make a statement about what is true, my intention is to say what is true, not merely to say what I believe is true. — Janus

But then you are entering a world of fiction, fantasy.

You make up that a cat is probably there from a few sketchy outlines and a lot of prior expectation and then you don't even bother checking unless something gives you reason to. That is - by the best science we currently have - actually how your perception works. — Isaac

IMO the only way that it can be logically inferred that a 'cat is on a 'mat' is from a boot strap process of pattern identification from sense data. I discuss this in some detail in my book 'The Pattern Paradigm'.

But that itself is a 'communication'. — A Seagull
What do you mean? — Wallows

The only way you can learn 'new facts about how to use language' is through communication, using language.

Well of course! What other process can there be for the 'transmission of knowledge'? — A Seagull
One in which, someone learns some new facts about how to use language? — Wallows

But that itself is a 'communication'.

What 'appropriate criteria'? — A SeagullWell, for example, the notion of cost per pound v. healthy weight. My doctor regards my weight as represented as healthy. How exactly accurate the weight, or how healthy, not in question. We have shared meaning and understanding. — tim wood

Well yes I was thinking that the information about your weight would be of more interest to your doctor than to a fellow philosopher!

Well, isn't language a sort of conceptual schema? We all learn the same stuff at school, so nobody is really more efficient at communication? — Wallows

Communication is a two-tired process, there is the sender and there is the receiver. Learning is a very complex process and not directly linked to communication. The interpreted meaning of a communication can differ from its literal meaning.

That's like saying that people are like computers and transmit knowledge in the bulk of it through language use. — Wallows

Well of course! What other process can there be for the 'transmission of knowledge'?

3.7k

↪A Seagull That goes to appropriate criteria. Within which, no ambiguity. — tim wood

What 'appropriate criteria'?

The conceptual schema that is language, doesn't seem to be about data (information) passing one mind from the other?

I'm surprised to see this sentiment so adhered to. — Wallows

What 'conceptual schema'?

What 'sentiment'?

Language has the sole purpose of communication. And of course there are limits to the efficacy of communication, you can think of it as a bandwidth problem. — A Seagull
Why do you call it a bandwidth problem? — Wallows

The rate at which I can communicate data from my mind to yours is limited by the means of the communication ie sounds, or symbols on a piece of paper; its a pretty inefficient process.

That communication presupposes the mutual ability to communicate - as defined above. But you're concerned with ambiguity, is that correct? I weigh 196 pounds. What is ambiguous about that? — tim wood

It is not particularly ambiguous, but it is also over-precise. You do not weigh 196.00000000000000000000 lbs. so what do you estimate are the error margins for your weight?

Well, it's not so much the limits at language, manifest in saying like "A picture is worth a thousand words"; but, rather, why the problem exists in the first place? Zooming out... — Wallows

Language has the sole purpose of communication. And of course there are limits to the efficacy of communication, you can think of it as a bandwidth problem.

Education teaches us, or at the highest levels, that vagueness is bad for academic writing.

So, it's also baked into the system of thought itself. — Wallows

The problem you refer to lies within language itself. Words inherently have a range of meanings. If I have an image in my mind that I am trying to communicate there are only a limited number of words that I can choose from (and even selecting an appropriate word is a complex process) and the final communication can only be a poor representation of the picture in my mind. If you go for too much rigour in the communication one does so with an associated lack of accuracy.

Sorry, I got the whole thread wrong. I meant to say, how does one eliminate the vagueness of that phrase? — Wallows

Why do you want to?

What is so hard about that? Why complicate things by bringing in all this talk about 'truth'? — A Seagull
Because it's fun. — frank

Well I congratulate you! It is good to find fun in the little things, but personally I have had more fun having a root canal. :)

put the cup in the cupboard. We can’t see it, we can’t verify that it is true that the cup is in the cupboard. — Banno
It's verifiable in principle. Just open the door.

You didn't believe that meaning is truth conditions anyway, did you? You're more meaning-is-use. — frank

A believes that there is a cup in the cupboard. He/she opens the door and realises that he/she was mistaken.

What is so hard about that? Why complicate things by bringing in all this talk about 'truth'?

I am not here to educate people. — A Seagull
Probably just as well. — Banno

Lol

The first thing people need to learn before they can get educated is that there is something they need, or at least want, to learn.

PS Does it not bother you at all that you don't (or at least seem not to) know what assumptions your philosophy is based on?

If the scientific method is not the primary process for discerning facts about the world ( Is that what scientism is?), then what process is?

It's not my fault that I happen to live in a society that provides me with benefits, such as roads and schooling.
I feel not obligation to contribute to society. — Wheatley

Absolutely right! If you don't want to contribute then don't.

I am quite happy to toss a few extra coins in the hat to cover for you, not because I expect anything particular in return. But because I want to live in a community where there is schooling and health care for everyone, where I can pass people in the street and share a smile. And because I am confident that what goes around comes around. And because I can. And because I know other people do the same. And because other people have covered for me in the past.