Just because I was thinking about it...

The Great Fact

. . .
Davidson used his own version of the “slingshot” (see the supplementary document to the entry “Facts”) to undermine a widespread view that true sentences correspond to facts. The line of reasoning in accordance with the slingshot schema forces us to admit then that all true sentences refer to one and the same fact, which Davidson (1969), nimbly enough, calls The Great Fact. This conclusion is often employed to make a case against the correspondence theory of truth. The idea is that facts—when related to a sentence—appear to be non-localizable, and thus any true sentence seems to correspond to the whole universe rather than to some of its “parts”. As it was suggested by C.I. Lewis (1943: 242), a proposition refers then not to some limited state of affairs, but to the “kind of total state of affairs we call a world”. — SEP on the Slingshot Argument

You can ask @Banno to explain it.

Perhaps your spell check is on to something - when it comes to this world, there may be only one truth that is undifferentiable from any other such that when we believe in truth about "our world" we are of necessity believing "the truth" about the Great Fact.

"The truth" implies there is only one truth, not many possible truths that could be valid from different points of view. — Athena

All rescued by noting that there is "true" and "truth." True the particular, and truth the generalization. And all that can be said of truth is just that it is a generalization, abstract, and thus itself empty, referring back to the particular, which is itself unique to its own case. But Aristotle covered this in opposing to the either-or, his neither-nor.

As to many possible truths, the qualification of different POVs essential, leaving truth untouched, but the several trues in question, the true then contingent on the trueness of the particular POV, in consideration of which it may be altogether untrue.

All rescued by noting that there is "true" and "truth." True the particular, and truth the generalization. And all that can be said of truth is just that it is a generalization, abstract, and thus itself empty, referring back to the particular, which is itself unique to its own case. But Aristotle covered this in opposing to the either-or, his neither-nor.

As to many possible truths, the qualification of different POVs essential, leaving truth untouched, but the several trues in question, the true then contingent on the trueness of the particular POV, in consideration of which it may be altogether untrue. — tim wood

That was some pretty fancy step dancing. I love "True the particular, and truth the generalization." That is much better than "the truth". I think culturally we need to work on your understanding so it is a shared understanding. But can we get there with the rules spell check follows? It is not just with the word truth, but commonly generalized meanings are missed by spell check. So if we write of government it wants us to speak of the particular, the government, the industry, etc.

Perhaps your spell check is on to something - when it comes to this world, there may be only one truth that is undifferentiable from any other such that when we believe in truth about "our world" we are of necessity believing "the truth" about the Great Fact. — Ennui Elucidator

I do not think that is so. Each of us has a different experience of reality. So when I told my son to be careful because what he was about to pick up was heavy, he lifted the object and said it was not heavy for him. I love that acceptance of us having different truths. His statement acknowledged the object was heavy for me.

The other extreme is the person who appears to believe he knows everything that is important to know when in truth he knows only his own limited experience of life, and from there he judges everyone else. Believing there is one truth is problematic.

Ty.

But can we get there with the rules spell check follows? — Athena

So far as spellcheck goes, it's just an imperfect tool; one still has to proofread. I proofread my writing here, and still find errors after I post, which I then edit.

And TPF a microsm of larger problems. Someone makes a rash claim in a post; I prove geometrically they're wrong and should repent their wayward claims in sackcloth and ashes; and almost immediately they're back with the same mistake. This no spellcheck can fix or prevent, but it becomes an extended game of whack-a mole. And a great shame so many moles thinking, saying, writing so much mole-sense!

So when I told my son to be careful because what he was about to pick up was heavy, — Athena

This the trap that language sets for us all, that all of us fall into even four times before breakfast. Of course you did not mean exactly what you exactly said, but usually folks understand. The trouble arises when they don't, or happen to be suffering from translation fatigue. An occupational hazard for parents, mothers in particular with their sons.

So far as spellcheck goes, it's just an imperfect tool; one still has to proofread. I proofread my writing here, and still find errors after I post, which I then edit. — tim wood

Years ago when I excitedly plugged into the internet, I decided computers are far from smart! We need human beings we can call because they can resolve our problems in ways the computer can not. Whenever I have the choice of doing business with a company that answers the phone with a human being, instead of a computerized program, I choose the human being.

When people started using answering machines and phone trees, there was the option to wait until a human being picked up the phone. We have lost that choice, and unless my life depends on completing a communication, the people I am calling loose my business. I will also stand in the long checkout line instead of the self-check line because I rather share this world with humans than with machines. Have you seen the movie Passengers?

This the trap that language sets for us all, that all of us fall into even four times before breakfast. Of course you did not mean exactly what you exactly said, but usually folks understand. The trouble arises when they don't, or happen to be suffering from translation fatigue. An occupational hazard for parents, mothers in particular with their sons. — tim wood

Oh my goodness YES! And people can get so UPSET because someone said the wrong thing! In my later years when I have the luxury of giving a thought my complete focus, and a lot of experience, I can occasionally be thrilled by how well I said something. :lol: I know this is unusual but I have spent much of my life feeling misunderstood. Come to think of it, I am not sure why I am complaining so much about computers. It can be just as difficult dealing with humans as it is to deal with a computer, but I have a preference for humans, even though that may be irrational. But not all humans. :lol: There are some humans I go out of my way to avoid.

That is the mindset of Nazi Germany, not the US that emulated Athens and the gods, each one of them being distinctly different with different points of view, and yet equal within the framework of logos. — Athena

I think it very likely that the Founders of our Great Republic, and most of the citizens of ancient Athens, including Solon and Pericles, Plato and Aristotle (while he was there), and maybe even Demosthenes, demagogue though he was, would disagree with the claim that there are "many possible truths that could be valid from different points of view."

But if there are many possible truths which could be valid, who can say? No doubt the Nazis acted consistent with the truth according to their own view of truth.

I think it very likely that the Founders of our Great Republic, and most of the citizens of ancient Athens, including Solon and Pericles, Plato and Aristotle (while he was there), and maybe even Demosthenes, demagogue though he was, would disagree with the claim that there are "many possible truths that could be valid from different points of view."

But if there are many possible truths which could be valid, who can say? No doubt the Nazis acted consistent with the truth according to their own view of truth. — Ciceronianus

An interesting and important question, I have a very old logic book that explains we can never know enough to believe we know what we know without a doubt. I think there are some things we can be more sure of than others. I think we can agree water is wet. However, we may not agree on what is the best news program.

The Greeks begin with many gods who argued until they had an agreement on the best reasoning. This led to the philosophers' notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe that not even the gods could violate. If there were only one truth, there would be no point in having a democracy. A ruler could know the truth and rule much more efficiently than when a bunch of people get involved with the decision-making.

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism. Pericles' funeral speech favors individual differences and shared responsibility.

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

My set of old grade school textbooks seems to copy Pericles' speech when listing the characteristics of democracy. In the US we are having a cultural conflict between authoritarianism and liberalism, independence as opposed to dependence; with our values so twisted into knots, we seem to be reactionary instead of rational. But hey, when my phone is giving me a bad time, it is hard to not fix it with a hammer. :grimace:

I do not know for sure but I think the west is more materialist than the east because of language differences? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

If you mean people in the East don't care as much about material wealth and such you're dead wrong. I'd say more so. There is generally a big difference between poor and rich and this is probably a big cause.

In terms of language, there is evidence that people who speak western languages are not as likely to pay attention to details when shown a picture of a fish tank. They see a fish tank, whilst if you ask someone from China/Vietnam they will list the items in the fish tank rather than view it as a just a fish tank.

Note: This study was done on adults not children. It may have something to do with education but language is probably tied in there somewhere.

If you recall I've mentioned before that motherese is different for different languages. Notably Korean, where children are taught to focus on prepositions rather than objects. The effect of this is negligible beyond the age of 4-5 yrs. Prior to that point Korean children will generally perform better at spacial tasks/puzzles where other children will perform better at category problems.

An interesting and important question, I have a very old logic book that explains we can never know enough to believe we know what we know without a doubt. I think there are some things we can be more sure of than others. I think we can agree water is wet. However, we may not agree on what is the best news program. — Athena

It's important to determine what it is we're referring to when we speak of "truth." If the question is whether water is wet, I doubt that anyone adheres to a "point of view" which would induce them to claim it is not wet, and if a person would make such a claim I think we would be justified in saying that person is wrong. If a Nazi claims that Jews sacrifice Gentile children as part of their religious rituals and drink their blood, I don't think it would be appropriate to say that claim is a "possible truth that could be valid."

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism. — Athena

Based on what he writes in his Republic, Plato might be described as the totalitarian's best friend. He more than anyone I know of championed government control of every aspect of our lives (for our own good, as every totalitarian claims).

↪Athena If you mean people in the East don't care as much about material wealth and such you're dead wrong. I'd say more so. There is generally a big difference between poor and rich and this is probably a big cause.

In terms of language, there is evidence that people who speak western languages are not as likely to pay attention to details when shown a picture of a fish tank. They see a fish tank, whilst if you ask someone from China/Vietnam they will list the items in the fish tank rather than view it as a just a fish tank.

Note: This study was done on adults not children. It may have something to do with education but language is probably tied in there somewhere.

If you recall I've mentioned before that motherese is different for different languages. Notably Korean, where children are taught to focus on prepositions rather than objects. The effect of this is negligible beyond the age of 4-5 yrs. Prior to that point Korean children will generally perform better at special tasks/puzzles where other children will perform better at category problems. — I like sushi

I understand being materialistic as believing all things are matter. As opposed to believing in the gods or animism. It would be the western focus on nouns.

I would like to know more about the cultural differences you mentioned. If I were younger and had money, I would go the east and do my best to absorb the cultural difference. Thank you for sharing.

It's important to determine what it is we're referring to when we speak of "truth." If the question is whether water is wet, I doubt that anyone adheres to a "point of view" which would induce them to claim it is not wet, and if a person would make such a claim I think we would be justified in saying that person is wrong. If a Nazi claims that Jews sacrifice Gentile children as part of their religious rituals and drink their blood, I don't think it would be appropriate to say that claim is a "possible truth that could be valid."

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism.
— Athena

Based on what he writes in his Republic, Plato might be described as the totalitarian's best friend. He more than anyone I know of championed government control of every aspect of our lives (for our own good, as every totalitarian claims). — Ciceronianus

Okay, what is a good way to classify our truths (a word) so we can label those truths in conversation as different kinds of truth? For example, the scientific reason for taking the covid vaccine is very different from believing a vaccine is a political matter an attempt of the government to control us for no other reason than to have control or win votes. If our language had a better way of classifying truths than "nonsense" or "truth" might it be possible for us to be more rational?

[quote=I like sushi[/quote] Your post really got me to thinking. How would that argument be different in the east? Science versus conspiracy theory?

I did not expect this to come up but now I see a linguistic aspect of our arguments. And the Arab Muslim people can be extremely argumentative. I had joined one of their forums and was blown away by how intense their arguing was and this has to be related to our words and notions of truth and perhaps notions of what is manly?

Okay, what is a good way to classify our truths (a word) so we can label those truths in conversation as different kinds of truth? — Athena

"Quid est veritas?", said "jesting Pilate." Dewey thought that "truth" carried so much baggage its use should be avoided. Never a paragon of eloquence, he suggested that it be replaced by "warranted assertibility." So, we would say that one is warranted in asserting that such and such is the case if that is what the best and greatest amount of evidence indicates is the case, subject to the recognition additional evidence may require a change in the assertion.

I personally would avoid referring to "different kinds of truth." I think "truth" is a question of judgment, and judgments are made based on circumstances and based on what is the case in those circumstances. There are assertions for which evidence exists and the extent of evidence may reasonably be used to determine which is more reliable--one which is without evidence shouldn't be thought of as true; One the other hand, there are matters of taste, for which there may be no dispute, and it would be inappropriate to say a preference for a certain kind of ice cream is "true." There are matters of religious belief, unsupported by evidence, which cannot be said to be "true."

I love Dewey's suggestion. I remember the science building of Hollywood High, in LA California, and the message over the front door. It said Science is truth, and this bothered me because our understanding of sciences changes as we gain information.

Are there cultures that do not believe they can know truth? I am thinking of India and its acceptance of zero and perhaps indigenous people who live with life was it is without attempting to control nature? For the first time, I am questioning if the pursuit of science and truth has been a blessing or curse to us?

Zeus gave the first man the first woman and a box filled with miseries to slow mans' progress in discovering technology. He was afraid with the technology of fire, man would discover all other technologies and forget the gods. Here we are destroying the planet with our technology and increasing the mass of humans beyond what is sustainable. And it is not like this moment in time was completely unknown!. The ancients could see there would a time when our planet could no longer support the life on it. What may not have been seen is it would be our good intentions that would bring us to our doom.

Whatever, we need to figure out this puzzle and how to use math to be more realistic about what we can do and what is not sustainable. We have to stop blaming Trump or Biden for the crisis on our borders and realize what overpopulation has to do with the flood of violence and refugees. Around the world, violence is erupting, and refugees and trying to cross borders to save their lives and the lives of their children. Is there a culture that can manage this better?