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

Why?

Sure, ask folk to show why they take something to be true. — Banno

I didn't ask anyonewhy. I asked the persons who made the original assertion

I feel that somethings are undeniably true — Andrew4Handel

how they arrived at that conclusion.

It goes both ways. — Banno

Why should it? He made an assertion. I queried his methods of verification.
But no answer will ever be forthcoming, so it's a futile inquiry.

Why? — Vera Mont

Because you seem'd so certain in your doubt...

So we agree that there are certainties, that some things are indubitable. Cool.

Because you seem'd so certain in your doubt... — Banno

What doubt? Where?

So we agree that there are certainties, that some things are indubitable — Banno

No, we don't. I agreed with Andrew that many people feel that some things are certain, but not necessarily the same ones. I also agree that many people agree about which things are certain, but I have no way of know knowing whether you and I share any specific certainties. I may have stopped doubting some things; you may have stopped doubting some things (though not necessarily the same ones), but that doesn't protect those categories of things from doubt by other people; it doesn't render the things in themselves indubitable.
Every idea, statement, assertion and belief is subject to doubt, regardless of your or my personal convictions.

Every idea, statement, assertion and belief is subject to doubt... — Vera Mont

Why?

On the contrary, it would appear that some things must be held indubitable in order for others to be doubted.

Example already given.

It depends what is meant by ‘doubt’. I think it is fair to say anything in direct conscious attention is being ‘questioned’ to some degree. Otherwise it would not be held consciously as some given item.

I think it is fair to say anything in direct conscious attention is being ‘questioned’ to some degree. — I like sushi

Why? I'm "questioning" the floor of this room...

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

Where doubt enters this scenario, is with the question of what does it mean to be "reading this". Then we may consider the statement of the op:

I made a thread about skepticism and said that we cannot coherently deny that language transmits meaning because by understanding this sentence you have proven that language transmits meaning. — Andrew4Handel

That meaning actually transmits from you to me, in the act of me reading what you wrote, is highly doubtful. This would require that I understand "reading this" in the same way that you do. Otherwise I cannot assume that I got the meaning you intended to give me, and meaning did not transmit. Discussions here at TPF demonstrate that you and I do not understand words in a similar way. Therefore I can conclude that meaning does not transmit, and I most likely understand "reading this" in a way other than you intend. Since you wrote "reading this" and you are proposing that someone else is the one doing the reading in the way that you intend by "reading", and it is likely that the person is reading in a way other than what you intend by that word, doubt is clearly justified.

I made a thread about skepticism and said that we cannot coherently deny that language transmits meaning because by understanding this sentence you have proven that language transmits meaning.

I then challenged the justification for a lot of skepticism. Extreme brain in a vat skepticism has no evidence or warrant for it and does not justify building a world view around it.

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

I would answer with practical probability.

I act out of probability in every situation. Truth is that which has the highest of probabilities. It's the same principle as in scientific research, no scientist is ever claiming absolute truth, they are claiming levels of probability. Now, some seem to think that probability means there are no truths, and therefore other probabilities always balance out the highest probability, but that is a false interpretation of it. For example, General relativity has such a high probability that all experiments that have been conducted on it have perfectly verified it, including the latest about gravity waves, which was said to be the last experimentally unverified part of Einstein's predictions. So, in terms of normal speak, it would be considered truth. But in science, it is still just referred to as an extremely high level of probability.

Why I'm usually always bringing up science like this in these types of discussions is that the frame of mind humbles our experience of knowledge. It makes it possible to be certain of some truths without getting stuck in bias. Because even if something has a high probability, there might just be some discovery that flips it on its head, and when such a thing happens, those who are dead certain of truths in an absolutist form will still hang on to those truths, being mentally incapable of change. But if everything is formed out of levels of probability, you will never have a problem changing the "truths" that define your knowledge, if those "truths" were proven wrong by another higher probability.

If the subjective scrutiny of the individual's knowledge is always thorough and with as objective eyes as can possibly be, they will rid themselves of bias and be able to flow through knowledge without getting lost or stuck. They will also be able to interact with others of the same frame of mind in a way that better themselves and the world.

The way for an individual to scrutinize their own personal truths should always be: does it have the highest probability? And is that probability objectively formed or invented by themselves or someone else that they surrendered to?

On the contrary, it would appear that some things must be held indubitable in order for others to be doubted. — Banno

Looks suspiciously like dogma, that does.


There are different ways of testing truth.

Because we don’t attend to the obvious unless there is a reason to. I pay no heed to how I inhale or exhale … except now I am doing just that. ‘To Question’ is probably best replaced with ‘To Ken’.

I'm "questioning" the floor of this room.. — Banno

And so you should! Experience of - i.e. having previously tested - something may well have convinced you that it is what it seems to be; that a statement is true (or has a high level of probability in the current situation, context and moment in time) or a floor is solid.
The first time you encounter a particular floor, your previous experience of floors in general may have given you a high level of confidence in them, but there is also a chance that you will fall through it. The degree of probability of one condition (safe) vs another (unreliable) depends on a number of factors, at least some of which are available for observation and testing before you put your full weight on that unknown floor. Your odds against plunging to your death are directly proportional to your ability to doubt even the self-evident.

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

This is a very good point and I basically agree. I would fully agree if we could talk about absolute truth, whether it exists or not. And the word "undeniably", refers to such a truth, as do the words "indisputably", "unquestionably", etc. Esp. in philosophy, there are always different views about things. There's no one out there to tell what the absolute truth is. Also, some truths cannot be even described or expressed. They are what we call ineffable truths. In fact, there are times that I talk about something that I know well, it is --actually, seems-- very obvious, etc. and I want to use the word "indisputably", but I hold myself back. Because, 1) who am I to tell and 2) there can always be a different viewpoint about it.
Another thing that makes absolute truth impossible to tell is the context in which a statement is made. But then one can bind a statement with a certain context and say "This thing is always true in this specific case or cases". But even this can be very difficult to establish: there's always a possibility of a different view.
The nearest we can get to absolute truths and talk about them are commonly accepted truths and truths that could stand the test of time. (And, of course, there are truths which are supported by hard evidence, as in trials. But these are not of the kind we are talking here, i.e. philosophical truths.)

As for "interpretive relativism", i.e. a truth is relative, I believe it is something different. It can maybe be connected only to the factor of "context" that I talked about.

To me, truth is an affirming property that can be attached to something, maybe that something could be simplified to being a claim. We create rules in different contexts for how a claim can qualify for this affirming property of truth. The claim, the rules and the process of applying those rules are done by people. "A shape that has three sides is a triangle", and "any shape with three sides is a triangle", aren't much different from giving your dog the name "Mark" and insisting that it is true that your dog's name is Mark.

It is true that your dog's name is Mark, but it's not written into the fabric of reality, it's just, by convention, the owner is the one to name their dog, and so if you say the dog's name is Mark then it's Mark. I could nonetheless ignore this convention and insist that your dog's name is Billy. I will call your dog Billy and you will say "No... His name is Mark, why are you calling him Billy? Are you an idiot?" and almost any reasonable person would agree with you.

If there's a difference, it's that the convention stopping me from disputing what a triangle is comes from language, and the convention stopping me from renaming your dog is cultural. I don't agree that "the definition of anything is true of all examples of that thing". Yet, whether it is or isn't the case, would depend on the conventions of English. Though I'm not saying that means the conventions of English are arbitrary, the role of language is multifaceted and so are the reasons for rules or conventions.

"Undeniable" truths are only undeniable when you lock in the claim, rules and conventions that make them undeniable. I can refute "triangles have three sides", but to do that, I must undermine important logical, practical conventions, and I imagine this would be brought up against me if I tried. Do you agree with my analysis?

"A shape that has three sides is a triangle", and "any shape with three sides is a triangle" — Judaka

Are almost the same statement. The first iteration may be taken to refer to "a" shape; a single instance. The second is generalized to all examples of the shape. Neither proves nor supports the other. The thing is named and defined by "triangle" and "three sides"; there is no veracity or context to dispute.

The name given to a dog does not define even one dog, let alone an entire species. It can be disputed, if, for example I had adopted Mark from a pound, and then the previous owner showed up, claiming his dog named Rex. Neither claim disputes the animal's dogness.

I do not think the truth has to be what is instrumental or what makes us feel comfortable.

I think that no after life has problematic implications for life and meaning and that moral nihilism is a negative conclusion but could be true.
It could be decided our behaviour is highly unethical such as failure to help the poor and disadvantaged and global inequality. I think creating new children is ethically problematic.

I don't think that trying to ascertain the truth would be an easy process just like truth and reconciliation projects. The truth may undermine our beliefs and values.

I don't seem to have a particular overriding goal in my life but if I had to choose it would be the desire to know the truth and understand the reality I have been thrown in.

I don't seem to have a particular overriding goal in my life but if I had to choose it would be the desire to know the truth and understand the reality I have been thrown in. — Andrew4Handel

All of the truth about everything, or just some particular truths about some particular things? The latter is doable: just pick a subject, make yourself a project plan, then question every aspect of the subject and test every answer. Whatever you try to discover the truth about, you'll need a method of approach.

All of the truth about everything, or just some particular truths about some particular things? — Vera Mont

Ideally fundamental truths like:

What is consciousness? What is the right thing to do? Is society fair? Is life meaningful or meaningless? Who is telling the truth and what beliefs are we taking for granted.

I think that no after life has problematic implications for life and meaning and that moral nihilism is a negative conclusion but could be true.

It could be decided our behavior is highly unethical such as failure to help the poor and disadvantaged and global inequality. I think creating new children is ethically problematic. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you're not going to be alone with these sorts of ideas. Many people I know have been aflame with such notions since they were teenagers, decades ago.

I can't imagine how an afterlife would make sense, but that's more about me than a philosophical argument. Personally, I think not having a belief in an afterlife makes many of us more concerned about the only life we do have, which matters more than if it were just some brief stepping stone on the way to Allah and paradise. I think this likely to intensify the motivation to do something substantive about social justice and climate change - at least that's how it has played out for most of the secular humanists I have known.

Personally, I think not having a belief in an afterlife makes many of us more concerned about the only life we do have — Tom Storm

One issue about the truth is what to do after you have discovered it. How would you react if there was proven to be an afterlife? And how should we react if we could prove there was no afterlife and why?

I am an agnostic about things like this. I think that living one's life under assumptions about the unknown could be living falsely.

I think that if we don't know something we should live as if we don't know it.
A trivial example is if you are going to visit your mum. and you don't know whether she is home or not.

You could visit her to try and find out and risk a wasted journey or phone her etc but it would be inappropriate to assume she wasn't home without trying to find out. (I can probably think of better examples in the future.)

But you can compare it to Pascal's wager and whether there is anything to lose by believing or not believing in God.

But you can compare it to Pascal's wager and whether there is anything to lose by believing or not believing in God. — Andrew4Handel

Two clear problems with Pascal's wager - 1) Which god/s do you pretend to believe in? If you settle on the Anglican Christ, boy is Allah going to be pissed. 2) You can't fake a belief - you are either convinced or you are not convinced. And pretending to believe is not going to fool any deities. Even if you manage to pick the correct deity or version of that deity to believe in. :worry:

One issue about the truth is what to do after you have discovered it. How would you react if there was proven to be an afterlife? And how should we react if we could prove there was no afterlife and why? — Andrew4Handel

Hard to say. But even if someone can prove that consciousness survives death, what of it? It says nothing of itself about whether Hinduism (say) is true or not. We would actually need to know there is an afterlife AND why and how this is the case to derive any coherent meaning from it.

I think that if we don't know something we should live as if we don't know it. — Andrew4Handel

Isn't living like you don't know functionally no different than living like you don't believe? In the case of gods and goddesses - if I don't know, then I have no reason to believe - no reason to hold sacrifices or prayers or follow religious rules. And therefore I behave as if they are not a thing.

You seem to think you made a point. You didn't.

Because we don’t attend to the obvious unless there is a reason to. — I like sushi

Just so. We bring things in to doubt when we have reason to do so.

And in doing so we hold other things as indubitable. So even , venturing tentatively onto a previously unexplored floor for fear of falling through, holds gravity indubitable.

The pop culture has it that we ought doubt everything, put it to the test. A bit of thinking shows this pop notion to be problematic.

You've refuted a lot of claims that I didn't make and I can't see how anything you said is related to my argument. My argument is that truth status is determined by rules and conventions, and that "the truth" of the dog's name or the definition of a triangle is determined by the rules and conventions of culture and language respectively.

Isn't living like you don't know functionally no different than living like you don't believe? — Tom Storm

I don't think so. Imagine if someone is suicidal for mental health reasons. I would want to give them a reason to live. They may have formed the belief that life is pointless and meaningless. False beliefs can motivate people do harmful things and reach bad conclusions.

I don't know if life is inherently meaningful and I have been in this situation myself. I am now in the situation that not knowing means that I don't rule out possibilities.

Not knowing can mean hope and possibility as well as anxiety and uncertainty. False beliefs can mean false hope or inappropriate despair.

I do think we are in an existential dilemma without answers when it comes to deciding how to live. But I do think we can explore the truth value in our beliefs. I don't how we can decide whose values we can run society on but currently we rely on democracy and political and ideological fights some of which appears to be pure propaganda.

I don't think so. Imagine if someone is suicidal for mental health reasons. I would want to give them a reason to live. They may have formed the belief that life is pointless and meaningless. False beliefs can motivate people do harmful things and reach bad conclusions. — Andrew4Handel

I don't see how this is related to whether a lack of belief isfunctionally the same as disbelief, as I think I have illustrated.

I assume you don't believe in in the deity Ahura Mazda - like any gods, he can't be disprove, but I am assuming you live as though he doesn't exist. That's my point.

What is consciousness? What is the right thing to do? Is society fair? Is life meaningful or meaningless? Who is telling the truth and what beliefs are we taking for granted. — Andrew4Handel

Some of those topics will be harder to investigate than others. Not least of your problem will stem from the assumption that language is intelligible, which is by no means always the case. I wish you luck and success, and offer my willingness to supply any small slivers of enlightenment I may have inadvertently collected over the years.

You seem to think you made a point. You didn't. — Banno

Ouch! :cry:

So even ↪Vera Mont
, venturing tentatively onto a previously unexplored floor for fear of falling through, holds gravity indubitable. — Banno

It wasn't my first encounter with gravity. Having extensive experience of gravity, I formed a high degree of confidence on the probability of its continued operation; thus it has become one of those things takes for granted and doesn't pay attention to unless there is some particular reason - e.g, being invited to the space station.

You've refuted a lot of claims that I didn't make and I can't see how anything you said is related to my argument. — Judaka

Only one asaik : that a statement regarding the name of a dog is equivalent to restating the definition of a geometric shape.
If my response was unrelated to your argument, that might have been because you moved your argument.
From the original context:
"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. ""

to:

"A shape that has three sides is a triangle", and "any shape with three sides is a triangle", aren't much different from giving your dog the name "Mark" and insisting that it is true that your dog's name is Mark. — Judaka

But that's all right; it was yours to move.

I assume you don't believe in in the deity Ahura Mazda - like any gods, he can't be disprove, but I am assuming you live as though he doesn't exist. That's my point. — Tom Storm

No I actively disbelieve in any current religions and gods. I believe they don't exist because the evidence points to the fact that they are man made. I am not agnostic about things that could easily be man made.

I am agnostic about the basic concept of a fundamental first-cause type, intelligent, sentient creator deity.

I don't live as if I know that there is no God or no afterlife or as if I have moral certainties.

I think that a lot of decisions could be described as faith based because we don't know if we are right or have certainty and can't guarantee consequences.

Part of my own life long motivation struggles is based on not knowing what I should do, what risks I can take, if any of it means anything.

I did add to my argument. In my first comment, I didn't provide any argument to dispute the claim about a triangle having three sides, but the idea is that the claim is "indisputable" and that's why it's brought up, to prove that truth more generally also has this quality of being indisputable. That is why I made a post talking about why this claim was indisputable due to convention and not because of the nature of truth. The substance of my argument wasn't what you quoted, that was just an example for the sake of illustration. If you agree that these statements are true by convention then we agree, but I can't tell by your reply what you're trying to say.

the idea is that the claim is "indisputable" — Judaka

It's indisputable, because there is nothing in it to dispute: it's not a claim; it's a definition.
A triangle is a triangle. No truth value attached; it's the arbitrary designation of thing with three sides, signified by an arrangement of letters in the Roman alphabet, derived from two Latin words.

these statements are true by convention — Judaka

The names of things are the names of things. True by the nature and function or language.
If you want to call that convention, OK.

Isn't skepticism more of an epistemic matter (like justification) than of truth?
I doubt (pun) anyone wouldn't value truth one way or other; that seems wrong, if not absurd.
Anyway, radical skepticism seems mostly an intellectual exercise, that people then move past.