He's trying to imply that because we can be objective about knowing little, we can be objective about knowing a lot, which obviously makes no sense. — neonspectraltoast

I agree that a generalised rule shouldn't be formed from an objective specific.

I said I believe in an objective reality. I can't prove the existence of one. No one can. — neonspectraltoast

Ah objectivity is faith based then

It may be the root of all faith. We're forced to make assumptions by our very nature.

Like I think I said in my first post, though, I think we just need to be careful about how far we take it...how much we take for granted.

I can't experience others' awareness firsthand, but I think it's reasonable to believe in them. And it's important to not take them for granted. If it rains, we all know it's raining, but it's a big step to then assume you know what the essential nature of water is. We don't even have a comprehensive scientific understanding of what matter is.

“...the definition of the word truth, to wit, the accordance of the cognition with its object...
— Mww
Yes, correspondence theory of truth. Aristotle. — David Mo

Perhaps, but the quote, taken in the full context of its derivation, has been associated with the coherence theory as well. Depends on how far one delves into the text and what he can dig out of it for himself.
——————-

But limiting itself to the pure form of the proposition. — David Mo

Agreed, for in no other way is criterion for truth irreducible, then to the form to which all substitutions in it must adhere. If substitution violates the form, the substitution is false.
——————

The statement "The snow is green" is true if and only if the snow is green, is a banality from the point of view of knowledge of the world. — David Mo

LOL, true dat!! Still, the formula isn’t falsified by banality.
—————-

I suggest that a theory about truth is neither impossible nor pointless. — David Mo

Of course it is neither. The context from which this exchange originated doesn’t address theory, it addresses what happens without one.

All we can know is that "something" exists. We can't discern what that something is. I believe in an objective reality, but from a human perspective we know very little about it. — neonspectraltoast

This is so obviously, astonishingly wrong, that it is hard to know where to begin.

Neon knows nothing about the language they use to construct the post nor the device they construct it on...?

Nothing about the topic of this thread?

That's bullshit - using that word as a technical term. Neon misrepresents what they believe; the pretence is that they know nothing, but their actions put the lie to this.

So what's their payoff? How does Neon represent them self?

Really? What is better? For some 'better' is winning in the shortest amount of moves possible. For others 'better' is the ingenuity of play. If you mean 'better' as simply winning the game, then isn't that merely the performance of a logic that is fundamentally a subjective framework? Winning a game invented by humans; whereby the semantics and rules are collectively agreed upon, acting as a kind of subjective constraint.

"Better" is about winning games. If I ask you who is the better tennis player - you or Roger Federer I feel like there wouldn't be this kind of confusion.

I'd like to keep the focus on chess strategy. I know the rules were invented and sometimes even changed over time. But when we talk about chess we're not talking about chess as it was played in the 1500s. I shouldn't have to specify that.

There are better and worse strategies - in other words, strategies more apt to win games and strategies that perform poorly towards this end. This can be demonstrated repeatedly in real life to point where no one even argues it anymore.

Also keep in mind that "invented" doesn't mean "subjective." The English language was invented and evolved over time, but if it were truly subjective then I could use it or write it however I wanted and it would be fine but that's not the case. For something to be subjective the truth resides 'in the subject' which is not true for the English language or chess strategy.

The statement "The snow is green" is true if and only if the snow is green, is a banality from the point of view of knowledge of the world. — David Mo

Yes, it is - that's part of the point. "...is true" is banal. It adds nothing to what has already been asserted.

That it draws attention to this is a key reason for giving T-sentences consideration.

See, what counts is not that a statement is objective, or subjective, but that it is true, or that it is false.

No, I don't. And if you really think about it, neither do you. Tell me the nature of language, the nature of the atom, and the nature of reality, and I might agree with you. All we understand is the bare face of completely abstract concepts.

No, I don't. — neonspectraltoast

Yeah, you do - you just did, in using a sentence of English in an attempt to show that you know nothing...

...here's something of Wittgenstein's On Certainty: doubt has a background of knowing. One can doubt that it is raining, but only if one understands what it would be like for it to be raining. One can doubt that Sydney is the capital of Australia, only if one knows what Australia is and what a capital is...

(yes, I know it's Canberra...)

Doubt has a background of knowing; hence it is absurd to attempt to doubt everything. Indeed, it is absurd to attempt to doubt most things.

Hence the philosophical enterprise of nihilism undermines itself.

Do you have any points that aren't moot?

I don't know what English is, exactly. Neither do you. Simply calling our mode of communication "English" explains nothing.

I've explained twice now that I believe in an objective reality we know little about. I won't explain that again. Are we using English? Well, I think I have higher standards of what it is than you do.

I don't know what English is, exactly. — neonspectraltoast

...and yet you are proficient at using it.

You can't tell us what English is, and yet you show it.

Here's your game: use English to say that you do not know what English is.

I believe in an objective reality we know little about — neonspectraltoast

Yet you function well enough in what you 'know little about' to be able to post here.

You know more than you say. Nihilism is a philosophical pretence.

It's not nihilism. It's simply the truth. Not lying to people and telling them they're absolute geniuses capable of implicitly understanding everything isn't nihilism.

I absolutely do not function with complete understanding of objective reality. I don't know what language is, how exactly the style and nuances of the English language were formed, or why. I don't know if it is an absolutely effective form if communication. I don't know why or how or if it is more effective than French, or how the French people's human experience is different on account of their language.

There is literally so much about language I can't be objective about. It may be objectively true that we're speaking a language, but what does that tell us? That all of reality can be objectively understood? When we can't even posit any insights into the language we're speaking?

I'm not saying we know nothing. We know reality implicitly. But there's a difference between knowledge and understanding.

Yep, there is a difference between "Neon does not know everything" and "Neon does not know anything".

Just take more care next time.

And I still maintain that I don't know anything. Everything is relative. Am I speaking to you or your idealized version of you? I don't know.

Yes, it is - that's part of the point. "...is true" is banal. It adds nothing to what has already been asserted. — Banno

Wow. That will come as shocking news to the millions of people who use it every day to add something to their assertions.

"It's true...I really do have a tattoo on my back";

"It's snowing?...Are you joking?", "No, It's true, It's snowing"

"You're lying to me, the documents aren't in the case!", "No, the documents are there, it's true, I swear!"

"He's an honest man, if he says he wasn't at the bank, it's true that he wasn't at the bank"

Are all those instances of 'is true' really adding nothing to what has already been asserted?

Or is tempering philosophical whimsy with reality something which applies only to some philosophical projects and not others?

Agreed, for in no other way is criterion for truth irreducible, then to the form to which all substitutions in it must adhere. If substitution violates the form, the substitution is false. — Mww

The substitution axiom is a mathematical axiom. I would like to know what it has to do with the existence of objects outside the mind and the possible knowledge of them. Can you explain it?
In my opinion pure mathematics needs transformation rules to become physical laws. Is the axiom of substitution one of them?

Yet the strategies within chess are objective - they exist regardless of whether a mind grasps them or not. The physical component of chess isn't relevant either: — BitconnectCarlos

What kind of objectivity are you talking about? You seem to believe that even if humanity, the planet, the galaxy and the known universe disappeared, the Sicilian Defence would still exist. Is that so? In what kind of reality?

Yes, it is - that's part of the point. "...is true" is banal. It adds nothing to what has already been asserted. — Banno

That is, it is merely analytical or formal. In that case, Tarski's criterion could not tell us anything about the existence of Covid-19 and the falsehoods that a certain ridiculous guy says about it in Twiter. What kind of criterion of truth is that? Or do you not believe that false things are said about Covid-19?

Sure, mention the illocutionary force of "it's true!" You know what's going on here; and I hope you know that I know.

You wanted to know about the logic of truth. T-sentences do just that. That's not the same as asking what you ought believe about Covid-19. Investigating truth will not tell you about Covid-19; for that, you will have to investigate Covid-19.

Investigating truth will not tell you what to believe about Covid-19; for that, you will hav to investigate Covid-19. — Banno

But you cannot say anything about Covid-19 if you do not first have an implicit or explicit criterion of what truth is. Saying "Covid19 kills if and only if Covid-19 kills" does not make anything clear. The problem is how do I know if Covid-19 kills and to what extent can I know.
Quoting Tarski at this point seems pointless to me. Unless you explain it to me better.

Of course, having an implicit concept of truth usually works, but there are certain moments in life and theory where one has to ask oneself what is truth and what the problems of realism are. Ask Einstein and Bohr, for example.

"Covid19 kills if and only if Covid-19 kills" — David Mo

It would be "Covid-19 kills" is true IFF Covid-19 kills.

One already knows what being true is; the problem is that one does not know which particular utterances are true in all cases. That particular conceit of the philosopher, "you cannot say anything about Covid-19 if you do not first have an implicit or explicit criterion of what truth iis" - well, let's just refer questions about Covid-19 to the medics, not the philosophers.

let's just refer questions about Covid-19 to the medics, not the philosophers. — Banno

And yet there's a 109 page thread about it, full of budding Nostrodamus's, exhibiting the seemingly universal human trait of defining what is 'true' by reference to a embedded narrative, rather than a reified ideal of a shared reality.

Indeed. Perplexing. Your answer?

Your answer? — Banno

Physiological I'm afraid. Philosophers, scientists and forum posters all share the same primal fear of not being able to predict the outcome of their actions. Do do this they need a model (bayesian, of course) and seeing as the outputs of some models form the priors of others (Quinean Web of Belief stuff) the notion of having to change one small part of the Web becomes more distressing the more interconnected that node is. Leaving the contents of that node to an external source seems to make it more vulnerable to future change, so we avoid it. Re-enforcing those beliefs by seeking mutual approval for them is comforting, as is doing so by fitting them, post hoc, to facts others agree on.

The more frightening the potential consequences, the less uncertainty people will express about the consequences of certain courses of action, regardless of even their own assessment of certainty in less perilous states.

Are we back to qualifying reality again? I trust you told them about the red cup and your theories concerning object permanence?

If there was no objective reality* then we can't be wrong about anything and yet philosophers constantly disagree. We know lots of things that are objectively true and we're wrong about some of them. The whole debate is a symptom of over idealizing knowledge. Can I know so something beyond doubt; well to doubt it implies there's a way it actually is; so doubting objective reality can be known implies it is otherwise.

*or access to it, or "provability", etc.

If there was no objective reality* then we can't be wrong about anything — Cheshire

Why on earth not? I was wrong to kick the table leg because it hurt my foot. There need not be access to an objective reality to make that the case.