'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?

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

By applying appropriate tests under appropriate criteria.

'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. — A Seagull

All anything "can be considered" to be anything you want. If that's your argument, it's a remarkably stupid one. If "all communications can be considered opinions," then there are only opinions. Yankees won the series? Matter of opinion. 2+2=4? Today my opinion is 2+2=5; tomorrow, who knows. In my opinion you owe me $25. When you decide this doesn't work for you any more, then let us know what you've got.

"by applying appropriate tests under appropriate criteria' seem pretty wishy-washy to me. It is just a sort of meaningless hand waving argument that is entirely non-rigorous and ultimately means nothing.

"by applying appropriate tests under appropriate criteria' seem pretty wishy-washy to me. It is just a sort of meaningless hand waving argument that is entirely non-rigorous and ultimately means nothing. — A Seagull

Demonstrate the truth of the following:
1) 2+2=4
2) Raspberries taste better than dirt
3) This is a coffee bean; that is a blackberry
4) Slavery is bad
5) It is better to build ships than a wall

These for a start. And as you appear to believe (maybe not, but so I think) that truth is a one and not a many, see if you can find one test for all, that gives conclusive answers.

Sure. Ants. Bumblebees. Are you sure their beliefs are criteria free? — tim wood

Are any beliefs free of criteria?

I guess you are saying some religions might be a well devised set of fallacies phrased in such a way to be coherent? Due to site guide lines I can't name the Holy book but there are atleast one very long book in a particular Holy book that is written in such a way that would make me think this is not written by a crazy man just venting his anger.

No wrong answer, if you feel inclined i can privately send you the name of that book in that Holy book. I'm sure you have better things to do though.

But yes Lawyers do this all the time. You can take 10 coherently written fallacies and present a pretty good argument that can manipulate others to benefit you or I or that guy over there. — christian2017

:ok:

The way you've written your question I do not understand it. If a proposition is true, [u[it is true by reference to something[/u], somehow. And there are enough different kinds of somethings and somehows such that the general question of truth becomes unanswerable, in the sense that one and only one reference, or test, or standard will answer for all propositions. Once a proposition is determined to be true, then it can be called true. But the label "true" or "truth" is altogether agnostic as to the standard by which the proposition is tested to be true. — tim wood

Are you in any way claiming the truth of what you say? If you are then, following your guidelines, I'd like you to tell me with reference to what are they true?

With reference to the common sense of the matter. There exist true propositions. Taken one-by-one and demonstrated, it becomes apparent that the manner of demonstration is not the same in every case, but rather differs depending on the case. Each manner, then, constitutes a species - a kind - of proof. All the propositions thus proved, or demonstrated, can reasonably be said to be true; i.e., to share in a quality called true, or truth. But that usage is the name not of of a species of truth, but of the genus that gathers them all as true, or truths. As such, the genus tells us nothing at all about any proposition other than it is true. Nothing at all about the manner or the method of the demonstration.

The truth of this is self-evident, self-proving. If it be false, then its contradiction must be true. I.e., that there must be one test for truth, applicable for all propositions. That this cannot be is left as an exercise for the reader.

With reference to the common sense of the matter. There exist true :smile: propositions. Taken one-by-one and demonstrated, it becomes apparent that the manner of demonstration is not the same in every case, but rather differs depending on the case. Each manner, then, constitutes a species - a kind - of proof. All the propositions thus proved, or demonstrated, can reasonably be said to be true; i.e., to share in a quality called true, or truth. But that usage is the name not of of a species of truth, but of the genus that gathers them all as true, or truths. As such, the genus tells us nothing at all about any proposition other than it is true. Nothing at all about the manner or the method of the demonstration.

The truth of this is self-evident, self-proving. If it be false, then its contradiction must be true. I.e., that there must be one test for truth, applicable for all propositions. That this cannot be is left as an exercise for the reader. — tim wood

So now there's a quality called true and truth. I thought you said they were meaningless?

So now there's a quality called true and truth. I thought you said they were meaningless? — TheMadFool

Sorry, I'm not interested in pulling all the oars. Go back and read.

Sorry, I'm not interested in pulling all the oars. Go back and read. — tim wood

But you haven't pulled even one oar :smile: and that's on your boat, not mine.

But you haven't pulled even one oar :smile: and that's on your boat, not mine. — TheMadFool

True and truth are not univocal terms. A proposition can be true and it can be said of that proposition 1) that it's true, and that it has a quality called truth, namely that it's true.

There is also the abstract term truth. We might, for example, say that this set of propositions all share - have in common - the quality of truth. Well, just what is that quality?

Let's try answering this last question from a different angle. You have, let's imagine, a number of sets of integers. Each set of integers can be summed. That is, to each set is assignable another integer which just is the sum of the integers in the set. Let us now say that the sets share the quality of being summable. Now we look at summable and ask what, exactly, this quality tells us about the sum in any of the sets? Answer: absolutely nothing.

In the same way, truth-as-quality, the quality of being true, says nothing about the particular true in question, or the how or why of it.

That is, the general term says nothing about the particular characteristics of the particular term. It does stand as naming something - an abstract(ed) quality - that they share.

Your turn to pull: can you improve on or add in any substantive way to the meaning of the general term truth beyond what has been already said? Can you even say what it means, beyond being a label for a quality? Or, can you even give any substantial/substantive meaning of its own, at all? Failing this, I call it a term meaningless in itself. Perhaps like a road sign. It points or labels, but itself means nothing.

True and truth are not univocal terms. A proposition can be true and it can be said of that proposition 1) that it's true, and that it has a quality called truth, namely that it's true.

There is also the abstract term truth. We might, for example, say that this set of propositions all share - have in common - the quality of truth. Well, just what is that quality?

Let's try answering this last question from a different angle. You have, let's imagine, a number of sets of integers. Each set of integers can be summed. That is, to each set is assignable another integer which just is the sum of the integers in the set. Let us now say that the sets share the quality of being summable. Now we look at summable and ask what, exactly, this quality tells us about the sum in any of the sets? Answer: absolutely nothing.

In the same way, truth-as-quality, the quality of being true, says nothing about the particular true in question, or the how or why of it.

That is, the general term says nothing about the particular characteristics of the particular term. It does stand as naming something - an abstract(ed) quality - that they share.

Your turn to pull: can you improve on or add in any substantive way to the meaning of the general term truth beyond what has been already said? Can you even say what it means, beyond being a label for a quality? Or, can you even give any substantial/substantive meaning of its own, at all? Failing this, I call it a term meaningless in itself. Perhaps like a road sign. It points or labels, but itself means nothing. — tim wood

I don't get your analogy of sums of integers.

Anyway, it seems that your claims are utilizing a theory of truth. The only theories of truth that I'm familiar with are:

1. The correspondence theory of truth
2. The pragmatic theory of truth
3. The coherence theory of truth

Are you saying all of the above are flawed and if so by which theory of truth did you come to that conclusion?

Anyway, it seems that your claims are utilizing a theory of truth. — TheMadFool

Sure, the appropriate test theory. And that's this or that or whatever it happens to be. Can you do better?

Sure, the appropriate test theory. And that's this or that or whatever it happens to be. Can you do better? — tim wood

I have a preference for the correpondence theory of truth which to my understanding asserts truth to be a relationship between propositions and reality - what is spoken/written must, to the best of our ability, reflect what is actually going on in reality.

I have a preference for the correspondence theory of truth which to my understanding asserts truth to be a relationship between propositions and reality — TheMadFool

You need to think about exactly what reality is and isn't.

Of the variety of kinds of truth, none collapses into the others. Each in its own way differs. If we're trying to figure out whether the NY Yankees were winners in '23, or what the sum of a group of integers is, they're distinctions that don't matter. On the other hand, if you have persuaded yourself that truth is a word with a substantive determinate meaning, then you have work to do. And what you "prefer" isn't going to cut it.

I don't get your analogy of sums of integers. — TheMadFool

You have my sympathy. Clearly you were never educated to think. Don't take that personally; most folks in the last 75 years have not been taught how to think. I wasn't. and I know for a fact that most teachers weren't and aren't. Instead you were fed pre-chewed baby food. The only problem is that very likely you're old enough to have got some hints on this score. It's a problem. Not yours alone. But now you know. Time to start working on it. You can start by going back to what you "didn't get" and figuring it out. Or advising me where I mislead you or wasn't sufficiently clear. You see, as a thinking adult, especially in a forum where presumably people gather to think and to benefit from the thinking of others, "I don't get..," is a cop-out.

You've given me good advice. Thanks. Anyway, which of the three choices I gave you in my last post is the correct fit for all what you're saying?

Are your comments meant to be a reflection of my reality? Does what you say cohere with some other truth that has become apparent to you? Are you being pragmatic whatever that means? Perhaps you're being all of them at the same time? Whatever the case, you've not been upfront about it. Could it be that I'm asking the wrong questions or perhaps you're unable to answer the question not necessarily because you're ignorant but because the matter is too complex for even the best among us.

Thanks. Anyway, which of the three choices I gave you in my last post is the correct fit for all what you're saying? — TheMadFool

The apodeictic seems right.

The apodeictic seems right. — tim wood

Thanks. I think I'll follow your advice and read a bit more.