Harold Joachim & the Jigsaw of Lies

TheMadFool

The first credited with the definitive formulation of The Coherence Theory of Truth was Harold Joachim

Now, my view on the coherence theory itself is, let's say, crude for I confess to be ignorant of better versions of it. The basic assertion seems to be that the truth of propositions depends completely on how well it fits with other propositions. 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".

However, in my humble opinion, a web of lies can also be made to cohere. A person can make a false claim and his accomplices can make other claims that altogether form a coherent but false set of claims. I believe many criminal activities, all of which involve creating, sustaining and perpetuating deception, actually employ coherence as a weapon to fool the gullible.

This problem, if it is one, may actually penetrate into the most cherished and apparently satisfactorily proven belief systems; even science may not be immune to this malady. I can't come up with an example off the top of my head but what about the luminiferous ether theory? It coheres quite well with light being a wave and thus requiring some kind of medium. I know present scientific consensus is that the ether doesn't exist but all I want to convey is that had we relied on coherence alone, it would be quite difficult to make sense of wave without a medium.

Relying on only the coherence theory of truth is like believing that just because the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fits together we have solved the puzzle, arrived at a true picture of reality. This is an error because what we've assembled on just the basis of a fit between the pieces could be perfectly coherent and still completely false.

Comments...

noAxioms

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'.

A Seagull

↪TheMadFool

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?

unenlightened

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.

Shawn

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

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?

tim wood

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.

creativesoul

However, in my humble opinion, a web of lies can also be made to cohere. — TheMadFool

Or... setting deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief(lies) aside... A web of falsehoods can be quite coherent.

creativesoul

1) True and truth are so always with respect to, and within, some standard, and not otherwise. No standard, no truth. — tim wood

Standards are linguistic devices... I think?

If so, then true belief would require language. Clearly, that's not the case. There are non linguistic creatures who have true belief.

tim wood

There are non linguistic creatures who have true belief. — creativesoul

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

TheMadFool

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

How much of a problem is this, if I understood correctly, regression of definitions? It doesn't seem to be an issue in ordinary discourse. Perhaps language, as we know it, fails to meet the standards of more formal discourse, like in philosophy?

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

I don't think being unable to discover falsehood is in any way a "beauty" but that's just me. Other theories on truth like the pragmatic theory are not being discussed here; then again, according to coherence theory, other theories of truth must cohere with it. Can you give me the lowdown on the pragmatic theory of truth if that's what you're alluding to?

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

Firstly, sorry to know Trump isn't in your good books. Secondly, what is the difference, if any, between logical consistency and coherence?

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

I'm unsure of how Godel's work impacts this discussion but isn't his incompleteness theorems restricted to mathematics? Although I remember him being labeled foremost as a logician. Also, I don't wish to discuss other theories of truth like pragmatism unless you can show me that some proposition concerning them is logically implied by any claims I've made. Thank you.

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

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?

Or... setting deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief(lies) aside... A web of falsehoods can be quite coherent. — creativesoul

Ok.

A Seagull

↪TheMadFool

The 'lowdown' on the beautiful theory can be found in my book 'The pattern paradigm', but you won't like it. lol.

tim wood

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

I offer this as brief summation for consideration. — tim wood

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 think that means that for a proposition to be true, it must have, in respect of its context, some particular performative value, must function somehow in some way - in short, be true. Round as a circle, I know. If you have better, go for it. Of course there is no end of theories of truth - well, maybe three or four - but none quite complete, and all different from each other in some critical way.

I take it all to mean that there is no one-size-fits-all model of truth, no single test that works in all cases. That leaves "truth" as an empty place-holder abstract term, Differ if you like. Can you do better?.

A Seagull

↪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.
PS I label the above as 'true'.

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

Yours puts truth into belief. But people have believed things that are not true.

To be sure, all of these considerations can be weighed and discussed without the bother of any rigour-in-discussion, but GIGO covers that (garbage in - garbage out). By "believes," then, in your context, do you mean anything at all in particular? Or is it just a vague reference to a psychological state?

A Seagull

↪tim wood

Yes people have believed and indeed still do believe things that other people think are not true. And even people have believed things to be true and later decided that they are not true.

There is no logical inconsistency in this.

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.

tim wood

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 question is what truth is, or means. You say it's what a person believes. What if anything does that add to understanding what truth is, or is it just transferring the indistinctness?

A Seagull

↪tim wood

Well , the word 'truth' would seem to have 2 uses:

1. If a person considers something to be 'true', then they would have no need to investigate the data relating to it any more and can simply use that 'truth' if and when circumstances merit it.

2. If a person communicates that they consider something to be 'true', there is an implied invitation or encouragement for the receiver of the communication to believe it too.

tim wood

↪A Seagull

This true of yours seems in every way subjective: if someone "believes" it; i someone "considers it so." Question: if true, is it true for all observers similarly situated? E.g., the NY Yankees won the 1923 world series, a matter of record, belief or consideration incidental. Alternative form of the question: if true, can all similarly situated observers be compelled to assent?

You seem to put truth into belief or consideration. I put it into a verifiable performative function.

Example: a person places a stone into a cup and chisels the fact into a stone tablet. Then he his all die out and a thousand years later the inscription is unearthed and the stone is still in the cup. No belief, no consideration, but still true.

A Seagull

↪tim wood

I am not sure what you mean by 'verifiable performative function'.

Of course 'similarly situated observers' cannot be compelled to 'assent'.

You seem to be assuming that all people must see the world in the same way that you do. This is unjustifiable. While there may be considerable consensus about the way the world appears to be, this cannot be justifiably extrapolated to the claim that everyone always sees the world the same way. All you know is the way you see the world.

As for your example, this might well fall into the consensus category; but your conclusion cannot be logically proven, at least not without the inclusion somewhere of a human judgement, which necessarily makes the conclusion subjective and not proven.

tim wood

↪A Seagull

Did the NY Yankees win the pennant in '23?

TheMadFool

↪tim wood

My question is what standard/criterion of truth are you using when you speak/write?

A Seagull

↪tim wood

I have no idea, I don't follow baseball.
What is your point?
Are you trying to claim that consensus equals undeniable certainty?

TheMadFool

The 'lowdown' on the beautiful theory can be found in my book 'The pattern paradigm', but you won't like it. lol. — A Seagull

:rofl: I'm all over the place.

A Seagull

↪TheMadFool

Well enjoy! :)

TheMadFool

Well enjoy! :) — A Seagull

Thank you.

tim wood

Are you trying to claim that consensus equals undeniable certainty? — A Seagull

That the NY Yankees won the world series in 1923 is a matter of consensus?

tim wood

What is your point? — A Seagull

Mainly that if truth is a matter of belief/consideration, how do you distinguish it from opinion or a lie?

tim wood

My question is what standard/criterion of truth are you using when you speak/write? — TheMadFool

Depends. Whatever works in context. Near as I can tell, that's the best that can be done. Think of the variety of propositions you could state. Some form of each of them must be true. But by one and only one test or class of tests? If you know what that is, please provide.

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?

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

The way you've written your question I do not understand it. If a proposition is true, it is true by reference to something, 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.

christian2017

↪TheMadFool

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.

Harold Joachim & the Jigsaw of Lies

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions