As far as I know there are no philosophers who are “anything goes relativists” or who deny the existence of the world outside their own minds, so maybe you’re just arguing against the bad philosophy you sometimes see on TPF. So, although I agree with you, I question that it’s a good topic for philosophy.

Note also that you’ve brought up three issues that, while sometimes connected, are usually tackled separately: truth, Cartesian scepticism, and relativism.

Do you mean I should quote published philosophers on this like pragmatists and relativists?

I watched the below video involving Rorty and in it they raised issue of the impact on civil rights movements on the idea that you can't define a concept among others such as whether you can define a vulnerable or threatened group or make a claim like "all men are made equal".

Do you mean I should quote published philosophers on this like pragmatists and relativists? — Andrew4Handel

If possible yes, or just discuss their views, or present your own interpretation of their views, or present what you see as the standard arguments, etc., and then criticize them. Relativism in particular is very commonly misunderstood, so it would be useful to get an idea of what relativists, if such creatures exist, are actually saying, so that you’re not attacking a straw man.

I watched the below video involving Rorty and in it they raised issue of the impact on civil rights movements on the idea that you can't define a concept among others such as whether you can define a vulnerable or threatened group or make a claim like "all men are made equal". — Andrew4Handel

So the thing here would be to pick out something substantial from the video and go through it in some detail.

I can just post some random quotes and you can tell me what you make of them and I give my take. For example this seems to be saying that the truth is instrumental in so much as it serves a purpose and not whether it is intrinsically true.

"Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"
William James

:up:

If I’m not mistaken, @T Clark agrees with James on truth, so maybe he’ll say something about it.

this seems to be saying that the truth is instrumental in so much as it serves a purpose and not whether it is intrinsically true — Andrew4Handel

Maybe you could say what you think is wrong with that.

The next paragraph is important, because that’s where he answers the question:

The moment pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. That is the practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that, therefore, is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known-as.

This thesis is what I have to defend. The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea. It becomes. — William James

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism" outside of genuinely ambiguous things that have proven good grounds to dispute. — Andrew4Handel

So do many people feel that - only not about the same truths you consider undeniable.
And how does one test for "undeniability"? How does one go about deciding which "things" are undeniably true, which are conditionally, provisionally, situationally, temporarily or partially true, and which things are false to what degree? How does one determine what truths are worth preserving, by what means and how long? Hoe does one "prove" the grounds for sufficient ambiguity to dispute?

When trying to demonstrate the importance of truth, often the most simple of examples and arguments are made. Things like "triangles have three sides, for instance. The simple example seems powerful because it's impossible to reasonably refute, but the reason that the simple example works doesn't extend to anything beyond that. It ONLY works on the most simple example, and when complexity is introduced, then relativism starts to take shape.

What leads to relativism isn't that there's no truth, it's that there's too much truth. The volume of truth is incomprehensibly immense. It's not just things that are true, but the validity of logic can be true, feelings can be true, stories, ideas, rules, the existence of cultural norms, the existence of societal norms, the existence of religious ideas, manners, the existence of morals, the existence of laws, the existence of values, different ways of defining words and the list goes on, you can add to it as you like.

Yet, It's not practical for a perspective to contain more than a handful of truths. One is forced to choose which truths to include or to ignore. Even then, these truths will be used subjectively, they will be used to mean something, to justify something, to explain something or some other purpose. This is a practical reality that one can never overcome.

Your OP is a highly specific collection of ideas, interpretations and arguments, their truth value is important but it doesn't change that this OP, and all things you express, are the result of your choices.

Your perspective will only ever contain truths, it can never be "the" truth.

Maybe you could say what you think is wrong with that. — Jamal

Let's take ethnic or racial or sex differences.

I think in the case of the sexes and races I think it has been important to clarify where men and women and black and white etc are genuinely equal in the fight for equality.

I think we should not create artificial barriers and give people immediate equality of opportunity. But I don't see the value in stating something that can be proven to be untrue and that will not serve an individual or groups interest.

For example people with disabilities and learning difficulties, mental health issues, need and deserve special accommodations, so in some scenarios need to have real differences established and recognised. I have the concept of equal but different.

It would be a charade to act like people are all the same whilst they are struggling and acknowledging that you are only committed to something's truth on superficial level or social engineering but that it may be a complete fiction.

Things like "triangles have three sides, for instance. The simple example seems powerful because it's impossible to reasonably refute, — Judaka

There is nothing there to refute: three sides are what defines "triangle. " One might generalize from that a bigger truth: "the definition of any thing is true of all examples of that thing."

Let's take ethnic or racial or sex differences. — Andrew4Handel

Well,that didn't take long!

It would be a charade to act like people are all the same

It would, indeed! As would pretending that "equal" (in a specified context) = "identical".

And how does one test for "undeniability"? — Vera Mont

I gave an example in a previous thread where I said that we know language works because we can say something like "I live in the house with a red door and blue car outside" and people can successfully locate our house.

And we know facts about human anatomy because we can save lives by doing heart surgery. So we know that an array of things are true that can only really be questioned if you really believe everything is a radical illusion.

And on initial foundations of truth we can argue about the truth value of other statements.

Somethings may not have truth value like moral claims and I think it is best to acknowledge this and put morality on fact based footing rather than have to create a society on unsustainable fictions unless that is a commitment we want to make.

I gave an example in a previous thread — Andrew4Handel

That's not helpful to people who haven't read, or can't remember all your previous threads.

I said that we know language works — Andrew4Handel

It works equally well to convey falsehoods, misconceptions, ambiguity and jocularity.

"I live in the house with a red door and blue car outside" and people can successfully locate our house. — Andrew4Handel

You could just as easily say "I live in a big white house with four columns supporting a portico on Pennsylvania Avenue," and people could find the house all right, yet the statement might still be untrue. You could say: "I live in a reinforced plasteel bunker on the dark side of Vega Prime." and that could be true, but much harder to verify.

I didn't ask: "About what subjects are there many documented facts?"
I asked: How do you go about finding out or testing for a truth that someone "feels" is undeniable? And by what process do you decide which are worth preserving?

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism" outside of genuinely ambiguous things that have proven good grounds to dispute. — Andrew4Handel

Extreme relativism is fairly rare. Sounds like you may be frightened of the postmodernists. I think that ship probably sailed decades ago.

Truth is an abstraction and does not work the same way wherever it is sought or found - there's mathematical truth, historical truth, cultural truth and subjective truth about ourselves, etc. To say the square root of 64 is 8, is a different type of truth from the statement we should not harm children. Truth may be necessary or contingent. And what about perspectival truths - the beliefs people hold as true, often without good reason - presuppositions, axioms, etc?

Somethings may not have truth value like moral claims and I think it is best to acknowledge this and put morality on fact based footing rather than have to create a society on unsustainable fictions unless that is a commitment we want to make. — Andrew4Handel

How does one put morality on a fact based footing? Personally I think that 'unstainable fiction' may be a good definition of society. Everything eventually changes, even that which we consider the immutable social order.

But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity? There are many people from a gamut of diverse religious backgrounds who think moral truths originate from god. They believe this is true. Is it likely that we will ever usher in a world where everyone agrees on what is true?

I do think people, when properly inspired, deeply value the truth. But when they've been lied to since the beginning of history, it can be hard for an individual to first identify and then embrace truth.

It is my opinion that it's the responsibility of the truth-teller to present said information "properly". As that happens, the truth is almost always chosen.

How does one put morality on a fact based footing? — Tom Storm

By acknowledging that it is a set of preferences not facts divine or otherwise and not taking any claims for granted.

But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity? — Tom Storm

I am in the position like a lot of people to express an opinion on it and advocate for my viewpoint and ideas. Someone or some groups worldview always triumphs.

In a sense you are wearing away my confidence with this kind of objection. People often claim this issue is too big don't try and attempt to do anything about. Or that a persons opinions are not valid because of X, Y and Z which is a recipe for apathy.

And this is what was sort of referred to in The Rorty et al discussion I posted. Would you say to Martin Luther King "But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity?"
Would you challenge his life and world changing statements by questioning his world view, authority and the truth value of his statements?

There are occasions where every little bit of activism and fight for your truth and values is vital.

By acknowledging that it is a set of preferences not facts divine or otherwise and not taking any claims for granted. — Andrew4Handel

What's that in plain English? And how does it reconcile morality (which brand??) with fact (which ones??)

And this is what was sort of referred to in The Rorty et al discussion I posted. Would you say to Martin Luther King "But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity?"
Would you challenge his life and world changing statements by questioning his world view, authority and the truth value of his statements?

There are occasions where every little bit of activism and fight for your truth and values is vital. — Andrew4Handel

But the point is not what anyone says to Dr King. The point is everyone comes with a perspective. I do not have Dr King's perspective. Additionally, I was referring to your discussion about the nature of truth, not what one does about social justice as they go about their business. Beliefs and theories are cheap. What matters is what people actually do.

Are you saying action is more important than philosophical theory and justification? What problem are you working to solve?

What's that in plain English? And how does it reconcile morality (which brand??) with fact (which ones??) — Vera Mont

The problem that I see we have is that we cannot say "genocide is wrong" and that be a factual statement. This could lead to moral nihilism.
The truth may be that nothing is right or wrong and there is no justice.

Until we get to this point of acknowledging it our moral/justice systems will be a fiction. Acknowledging will mean we can decide that to do next and what the consequence is.

Some philosophers do acknowledge the problem of moral truths like Hume's no is from an ought and
that they cannot be comparable to scientific facts.

At a basic level it would be interesting to see what remains when we have clarified fact from fiction, faith, desires/wishes and supposition. I am skeptical that we are anywhere near building societies on facts.

The problem that I see we have is that we cannot say "genocide is wrong" and that be a factual statement. This could lead to moral nihilism.
The truth may be that nothing is right or wrong and there is no justice. — Andrew4Handel

Humans can't help but chose values and modes of being, so I think this is wrong. We quite readily develop an ethical systems on the principle of harm minimization and human flourishing. Just about all moral systems in the end boil down to these simple principles.

Humans build the ethical systems they want to suit cultures and times and situations and this has always been the case. Although perhaps the choices are a bit richer today than 200 years ago. To say genocide is wrong is a shared community value most cultures hold as true. But we know there are tyrants who don't care. That's always been the case. We are no less exposed to potential chaos now than ever before in history.

What's changed?

Morality has failed and we have lost millions to war and genocide and preventable famine etc. And quite a lot of this seems to have been based around moral certainty and false "truths".

I don't think we have tried to base a society only on things we know to be true, yes it would be hard but not impossible.

Societies move from one set of dubious truths to another in what seems to be acts of self justification.

I think the reason for trying to create an equal society is that we cannot justify an unequal one which would mean installing laws that favoured no one group that or anarchy and I think that people would favour laws based on equality over anarchy. This has formed part of an ongoing process to some extent.

But this is just my opinions on a random forum and not a dictat.

The problem that I see we have is that we cannot say "genocide is wrong" and that be a factual statement. This could lead to moral nihilism.
The truth may be that nothing is right or wrong and there is no justice. — Andrew4Handel

Yep, that problem's been around for a while now.

Until we get to this point of acknowledging it our moral/justice systems will be a fiction. Acknowledging will mean we can decide that to do next and what the consequence is. — Andrew4Handel

That will be fine. When/if it happens.

Some philosophers do acknowledge the problem of moral truths like Hume's no is from an ought and
that they cannot be comparable to scientific facts. — Andrew4Handel

OK

At a basic level it would be interesting to see what remains when we have clarified fact from fiction, faith, desires/wishes and supposition. I am skeptical that we are anywhere near building societies on facts. — Andrew4Handel

It would, yes.
So I ask you yet again once more and for the final time:

How does one go about deciding which "things" are undeniably true, which are conditionally, provisionally, situationally, temporarily or partially true, and which things are false to what degree? How does one determine what truths are worth preserving, by what means and how long? Hoe does one "prove" the grounds for sufficient ambiguity to dispute? — Vera Mont

Morality has failed and we have lost millions to war and genocide and preventable famine etc. And quite a lot of this seems to have been based around moral certainty and false "truths". — Andrew4Handel

Morality hasn't failed. People are flawed and no moral system can guarantee compassion and generosity. Never has - whether we are serving gods or some political ideology.

Reason hasn't failed, either.
People, however, choose to employ reason for some decisions and not for others.

How does one go about deciding which "things" are undeniably true, which are conditionally, provisionally, situationally, temporarily or partially true, and which things are false to what degree? How does one determine what truths are worth preserving, by what means and how long? How does one "prove" the grounds for sufficient ambiguity to dispute? — Vera Mont

Would you ask this to computer scientists, a rocket engineer or surgeon?

Obviously there is a successful method to do successful surgery and design a safe aircraft or to create a useful medical model.

You pose the question it seems any a way that seems to imply that it is too hard yet we already have a huge body of accurate and useful knowledge and ongoing disputes some of which get resolved.

I would just continue the current process but apply it more rigour in non science and technology areas. I think the problem is the unjustified claims interspersed among the facts (these can be the ones running society). When something is shown not to be factual then we institute an arbitration process such as how to run a society based on various people's desires and preferences and belief systems without the option of truth claims.

I am someone who left a childhood religious cult after coming to the realisation that it was false. I have never gone back and am irreligious. So yes it can be important to clarify to yourself and others what is and is not true. For some people it is easier not to go against family or society for an easy life.

Would you ask this to computer scientists, a rocket engineer or surgeon? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, if they asserted that some truths are indisputable. And each one would have a plausible answer as to how he would go about testing the veracity of a statement about any aspect of his speciality - and probably all of their areas of expertise.
Would they give intelligible answers regarding moral questions? Very possibly, but I wouldn't count on it.

You pose the question it seems any a way that seems to imply that it is too hard — Andrew4Handel

Nothing to do with relative difficulty. I've simply been asking you to outline your method of approach.

we already have a huge body of accurate and useful knowledge — Andrew4Handel

About what? Surgery? That was acquired by cutting open dead humans and live dogs for about 100 years; followed by two more centuries of trial and error.

Regarding morality, we have disputes on which occasional regional consensus is reached - then are challenged again, either from inside or outside, but OTH money culture so dominates the entire globe that it's difficult to discern any sense in the controversies, and of course nobody has ever been able to make sense of nationalism and religion.

I would just continue the current process but apply it more rigour in non science and technology areas. — Andrew4Handel

The current and traditional processes of settling moral disagreements are repression and armed conflict. Can't see doing that with any more rigour.

When something is shown not to be factual then we institute an arbitration process such as how to run a society based on various people's desires and preferences and belief systems without the option of truth claims. — Andrew4Handel

To which imaginary "we" are you referring here? Name the country where that has been done... unless, by "arbitration process" you mean a few centuries of off-and-on democracy interspersed with periods of despotism.

So yes it can be important to clarify to yourself and others what is and is not true. — Andrew4Handel

For yourself, it is essential to healthy survival. And it must be done through a process of your own invention, as seems appropriate to your questions and your needs. Whether the same process can be applied to others.... maybe. But only they know whether, how, when and by whom.
If you want to help them, write down your method step by step, as clearly and comprehensively as possible, and write a book. If you publish it, they will come. ... some of them...

Yes, if they asserted that some truths are indisputable. — Vera Mont

Are you happy to doubt that you are reading this?

Your replying would surely show your doubt to be misplaced.

At the least, while you might be able to doubt anything, it makes no sense to doubt everything. And I mean that quite literally - in order to doubt, you need to hold something firm. To doubt that the cardiologist knows about hearts is to admit that there are cardiologists and hearts.

Are you happy to doubt that you are reading this? — Banno

Neither happy nor sad, just failing to see how it applies to the methods of verification that computer scientists, rocket engineers or surgeons would use on any new datum offered to them.

At the least, while you might be able to doubt anything, it makes no sense to doubt everything. — Banno

Okay. Relevance to topic?

I was not asking whether hearts and cardiologists exist; I was asking for methods of testing the truth of a statement; for the criteria whereby to decide whether it is one that should be enshrined as indisputable or classified as ambiguous enugh to debate.

Just pointing out that there are things that you do not doubt.

Sure, ask folk to show why they take something to be true. While you are at it, ask folk why they doubt stuff, too. It goes both ways. Sometimes doubt is unreasonable.

I feel that somethings are undeniably true — Andrew4Handel

Yep. It's easy to find a few examples. See above.