Here's some radical claim: there can be no dialogue severed from truth, because there would be no connection between one speaker and the other. But dialogue is not what happens in academia, politics, in advertising, in the mass media, including the internet for the most part. And that is the root of the problem. — unenlightened
Davidson's triangulation - me, you and the truth. What you say might be the case in humanities, where what is the case is so much more dependent on social construction. Is it true of the hard sciences? — Banno
such that folks can express the same view in different ways; one truth writ differently. — Banno
This is just to say that it is statements - sentences that make an assertion - that are true or false. — Banno
it would be misguided to juxtapose conforming to a state of the world, to conforming to a state of belief.
A true statement obviously involves both. — Banno
You mean judged by someone to be true or false about something. — apokrisis
Sure. And one can interpret a statement without judging it true or false.If a statement isn’t subject to an interpretation, it is just some trail of noise or some set of squiggles. — apokrisis
The fact you talk about states of the world and states of belief shows you are still thinking of the situation in dualistic mind~world fashion. — apokrisis
There is no place in science for 'Believe me, I know because I'm a teacher/authority.' Prove it, demonstrate it, or be banished to Psychceramia. — unenlightened
How could it not?Truth has authority over you and me — unenlightened
You can say what you like about the universe, — charleton
What is useful is not the very same as what is true. It seems that this is a distinction that you cannot male. It is presumably useful to believe what is useful - but that is a quite different point. — Banno
You can conceive of no middle ground between absolutism and relativism. And so - forced to make your choice - you side with absolutism. — apokrisis
We can be clear about breakdowns in translation when they are local enough, for
a background of generally successful translation provides what is
needed to make the failures intelligible.
These new indicators, being launched by Facebook and Google but created in consultation with 75 news organizations worldwide, will appear as “i” symbols alongside articles posted online and will indicate how a story was reported, the media company’s standards and the writer’s credentials.
Freire is the man with an analysis and a solution. — unenlightened
There is no place in science for 'Believe me, I know because I'm a teacher/authority.' Prove it, demonstrate it, or be banished to Psychceramia.
— unenlightened
Feyerabend would disagree, suggesting that sometimes science might well progress because of such authoritarian stances. — Banno
More white outsiders telling the indigenous what they needed.
So maybe not such a good solution. — Banno
Local constellations, or domains, where we have a familiar basis for differentiating truth from falsity and thereby, perhaps enabling a discussion of the critical parts which, if they can be determined. can/ought be used to approach the whole. — Cavacava
The critical parts of being able to distinguish truth from falsity?
↪creativesoul Said as much a few posts back. I also want to take care not to discard truth.
Truth has a central role in both sincere and insincere speech acts,
— creativesoul
And in bullshit? Truth does not enter into bullshit. — Banno
The critical parts of being able to distinguish truth from falsity?
Perhaps like trust (as a needed part) being certified by a third 'neutral' party consensus as a regular part of what we receive from media. Decisions concerning the truth of the matter are then is up to you, and your interlocutors based on trusted sources. Of course 'neutral' is still problematic, but it at least, it always has been problematic. People will still disagree but, on something that really happened and not an invented story, or on what people actually said, and not false statements. — Cavacava
↪creativesoul Bullshit is saying what suits you, despite the truth. — Banno
Each paradigm, according to Kuhn, has its own facts. Facts in one paradigm are not recognised as facts by adherents of alternative paradigms. Kuhn went so far as to argue that scientists from different paradigms lived in different worlds.
Facts, Kuhn argued, are always relative to the overarching paradigm.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.