For instance, in favor of the theory, the truth of the claim, "god doesn't exist" fits quite well with the proposition, "there's too much evil in the world". — TheMadFool
However, in my humble opinion, a web of lies can also be made to cohere. — TheMadFool
1) True and truth are so always with respect to, and within, some standard, and not otherwise. No standard, no truth. — tim wood
There are non linguistic creatures who have true belief. — creativesoul
Sounds like the truth of any set of propositions being equated to the mutual validity of the propositions. I'm pretty open to that, although it seems to reduce the meaning of 'truth' to the meaning of other words like 'validity'. — noAxioms
But the beauty of it is that you could never tell that it was 'false'.
Instead one has to rely on a more pragmatic test.. ie does it work? or at least does it work for you? — A Seagull
So to flesh it out just a little, the idea is that one has a world view, that is fairly stable - fire burns, shit smells, Trump is an idiot. I am a philosopher, this is the inter web. And these things have to be compatible with each other, and to the extent that they are they 'cohere'. So if you tell me that Trump can tie his own shoe laces, I will say 'that cannot be true, the man is an idiot.' Tying one's own shoelaces does not cohere with being an idiot.
And the theory allows that given further evidence, I might have to concede that after all, Trump can tie his shoelaces and therefore I must stop thinking he is an idiot and upgrade him too imbecile.
And as a general rule, it seems fairly reasonable as far as it goes. Miracles are incoherent; don't believe in them. — unenlightened
I don't exactly know the why of bringing up Godel; but, suppose we have a theory that is such and such, it seems to me that as long as the theory is incomplete; whilst remaining coherent, then there's pragmatically no problem, is there? — Wallows
Many, many posts and threads on "true" and "truth." I offer this as brief summation for consideration.
1) True and truth are so always with respect to, and within, some standard, and not otherwise. No standard, no truth.
2) Always there is confusion between a truth, something being true, and the truth, the latter being a chimera.
3) As general terms, both true and truth are generic abstract references to whatever, by whatever standard, just is true. And nothing whatsoever more than that. That is, in themelves and absent context, true and truth are either meaningless or at best expressions of wishful thinking. — tim wood
Or... setting deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief(lies) aside... A web of falsehoods can be quite coherent. — creativesoul
Does any of what you said have a truth value or are you using some criterion of truth in your claims? If no then what you said is not true but if yes then what criterion of truth did you use? — TheMadFool
As summation, accurate. What, exactly, is a truth value? I cannot get a handle on what you're asking. Try again? As to standards or criteria for being true, my conclusion and experience is that in every case that standard is case specific. That many cases are similar seems to yield generalizations and abstract ideas, but no such that I've encountered, used, read about, & etc., seems to stand apart from its instances.I offer this as brief summation for consideration. — tim wood
IMO truth is best viewed as a label for an idea, perhaps expressed as a statement or proposition, that one believes to be an accurate representation of the world. — A Seagull
I am not sure what you mean by 'psychological state' or are you just trying to distance the concept of 'truth' about the world from human judgement? An impossible and futile task in my opinion. — A Seagull
The 'lowdown' on the beautiful theory can be found in my book 'The pattern paradigm', but you won't like it. lol. — A Seagull
My question is what standard/criterion of truth are you using when you speak/write? — TheMadFool
Depends. Whatever works in context — tim wood
What works for you? I'm curious, that's all. You claimed that the notions, if they are different, of true and truth are meaningless. Is this claim true/false and by what criterion/standard? — TheMadFool
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.