From Wikipedia :
The English word truth is derived .... perhaps ultimately from PIE (Proto-Indo-European language) *dru- "tree", on the notion of "steadfast as an oak".
So I like to think that something is true if I know it as undoubtedly as I do that there is a tree in front of me.

For the most part beliefs have more to do with psychology than reason. Even people trained in proper reasoning techniques are not immune to how powerful psychological affects are in terms of what we believe. Our psychology has a powerful effect on how we see the evidence. As most of you know, how we see the facts determine our conclusions. I'm not saying that we can't be objective. I'm saying disagreements are mostly over how we see the evidence or facts, and our psychology has a powerful influence on our ability to see the facts, or not see the facts. — Sam26

While I am not disagreeing with you, I would add that the foundations of psychology are themselves logical and reasonable and so psychology cannot be entirely separated from reason.

Part of the problem is that a person's beliefs effectively define them as a person. So to alter their beliefs can be very challenging; despite any weight of evidence. The best way to get someone to change their beliefs is either through reward or punishment. Unfortunately in disciplines such as philosophy there are very few real incentives or disincentives, so people are happy to continue with the status quo.

9

I would say that isolated statements do hold truth, if the sender perceives there statement true regardless if there is a receiver or not. — DebateTheBait

OK, then the truth is subjective and becomes a label to the statement rather than a property of the statement.

Also if there is no 'receiver', then the statement can be viewed as a communication between the author and himself/herself.

The problem, arises from the presumption that isolated statements have meaning or truth.

Statements are communications, without a sender and receiver they are no more than meaningless strings of symbols.

Does this help?

statements are neither true nor false except where they are labelled as such by a person. — A Seagull
That means complete relativism - that everything is simply a matter of opinion. The problems fade away, but only because you're no longer addressing them. — Wayfarer

Not at all! The grounds for your assertion are baseless. The problems you referred to diminish to nothing. What other problems are there?

PS

I learnt to sail in a wayfarer. :) — A Seagull
Nice. I learned that there is also a popular sunglasses line of the same name. — Wayfarer

Is that where your name comes from?

But how is it possible for a statement to have the 'property of truth'? — A Seagull
You have to allow for at least some statement to be true, to even say anything. Otherwise you're facing the dilemma of universal scepticism - that if every statement is false, then so to is every argument that the sceptic can offer. So the examples Tim Wood provided that you were commenting on, are text-book cases of true statements, but that in itself doesn't really say much.

However, concern with truth is fundamental. I don't know if you're following politics and current affairs, but the current President of the US is notorious for mendacity. His disregard for truth is regarded by many of his critics as not only the sign of a profound character flaw but also a threat to the institutions of democracy itself, which expect at least some level of truthfulness from their elected officials, not least the highest elected official.

The difficulty in these kinds of conversations is the open-ended nature of the question 'what is truth'? As an abstract or general question, it's almost impossible to answer. You could write an essay on the Platonic or Arisotelean or neo-Platonist views on the question, but they're situated within a culture which still had a classical regard for what you could call Capital T Truth. I think as a general tendency modernity is inclined to reject that kind of attitude. We nowadays only talk in terms of falsifiability and provisional hypotheses; maybe that's the best we can hope for! — Wayfarer

I think the problems you refer to stem from the presumption that statements can have the property of truth and the presumption that every statement is either true or false.

These problems fade away from the idea that statements are neither true nor false except where they are labelled as such by a person.

PS I learnt to sail in a wayfarer. :)

Certainly you could label it as such if you wanted to; but do you have any criteria for doing so? — A Seagull
Of course! If only the label is 'true', but the statement itself doesn't have 'the property of truth', then the label is not true, because the statement it refers to is not true. It follows from your initial statement, that if no statements have the property of 'being true', then there's nothing meaningful you can say, because whatever you say must either be true, in which case it contradicts your argument, or it's false, in which case it's false. — Wayfarer

OK Fair enough. But how is it possible for a statement to have the 'property of truth'? And how is it possible to determine whether a statement has such a property? And what advantages are to ascribe a 'property of truth' to a statement rather than merely label it as 'true'?

My statements can be labelled as 'true' but they would not have the property of 'truth'. — A Seagull
In other words, the label would be false! — Wayfarer

Certainly you could label it as such if you wanted to; but do you have any criteria for doing so?

I am suggesting a cohesive and consistent approach to truth that does not have the inconsistencies of other theories. — A Seagull
This is a statement, right.? You claim that it's 'cohesive and consistent' in the service of making a point - which is trying to persuade others that your theory is true, where other theories aren't. So if you succeed, you undermine your initial claim that statements can't be labelled 'true', because your statement then has the property of being a true theory, which is what you're arguing against. And if it doesn't fit have the property of being true, then it's not a true theory, and you haven't made your case — Wayfarer

I said that statements can be labelled 'true', I also said that statements cannot have the property of 'truth'. I thought I had pointed out the distinction.

So there is no inconsistency. My statements can be labelled as 'true' but they would not have the property of 'truth'.






*[/quote]

[repl

just look at statements... how is it possible for them to have a 'property of truth'? — A Seagull
If that is true of your statement, then why I am expected to believe it? How can you make an argument? You're just creating strings of characters, right? Why bother typing anything? — Wayfarer

y="Wayfarer;67651"]

You are not 'expected' to believe it. It is a communication. And presumably you can understand it because there is a commonality of meaning of the words. Part of my communication is that I am suggesting a cohesive and consistent approach to truth that does not have the inconsistencies of other theories. But whether you believe it or not is entirely up to you.

in no way do those statements have the property of truth. — A Seagull
How do you judge that? You must know what 'the property of truth' is, to know that these statements don't have it. And if you don't know it, then you're simply expressing an opinion, but you can give no reason why anyone ought to agree that it's true — Wayfarer

The 'property of truth' does not really exist, it is superfluous to a consistent theory of truth, in the same way that the centrifugal force is superfluous to the theory of kinematics.

If you want reasons for that, just look at statements... how is it possible for them to have a 'property of truth'? They consist of strings of symbols which can be combined into 'words' whose 'meaning' can be determined (to some degree) by looking them up in a dictionary. That is all they are. Any label of 'truth' can only be applied to the statement by a person.

21



But in no way do those statements have the property of truth
. Great! Now, what is that property?

What is what property? Truth? Truth is not a property, it is a label.

When one affixes a label to a suitcase, it can hardly be said that that label becomes a property of the suitcase.

I disagree. This might be a critique of the true, and you can make it if you like, although I think you're mistaken. Consider these:
1) This (table here) is a table.
2) 7+5=12
3) triangles have three sides
4) Julius Caeser was a ruler of Rome.

These are true, no intuition about it — tim wood

These are not so much true as they have been labelled as 'true', by you. Other people may well agree with you; in which case they would have also labelled these statements as 'true'. And you might thus arrive at a consensus. But in no way do those statements have the property of truth.