Making-shit-up-iness is a perfect synonym. :smirk:

Making-shit-up-iness is a perfect synonym — 180 Proof

That's being just dismissive of the idea (the good kinda truthiness) I want to discuss.

The usual way things are done, propositions/claims are held/deemed to be true, is by proving them, using arguments. That's the philosophical way of handling assertions of all kinds.

What I want to know is whether truth itself has certain proof-independent, non-argumentative qualities that can be utilized to identify them. Speaking for myself, some such properties of truth are:

1. Beauty (you get a reading on your beauty-meter)
2. Elegance (they are graceful in form)

So, if I see a claim e.g. festina lente (make haste slowly), I don't feel the need for a proof for why this is true. It just feels right, it makes sense despite no evidence being offered. There's a truthiness to it that's got nothing to do with logic.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty. - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. — John Keats

This is the best description of the truthiness of Euler's Identity I could muster. I didn't refer to any math textbook, nor did I consult a mathematician, the equation seems/feels true. — TheMadFool

Amazing. If mathematical life were only so simple. :roll:

Amazing. If mathematical life were only so simple. :roll: — jgill

Why not? We could, if we ever discover those proof-independent qualities of truth, we could skip all the tedious logical deductions (burden of proof) and, you know, cut to the chase.

Truth =/= proof. "Truthiness" is, at best, redundant – merely an avowal or disposition, expectation or bias, or ... and not, in any non-subjective, corroborated, way, true.

Truth =/= proof. "Truthiness" is, at best, redundant – merely an avowal or disposition, expectation or bias, or ... and not, in any non-subjective, corroborated, way, true. — 180 Proof

Of course $truth \neq proof$ but you can't deny that proof is a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth of claims; another way of saying that is logic (argumentation) is key to, a prerequisite for, the veracity of a proposition.

What I want to know is whether there are other non-logical determinants of truth? In other words can I formulate a proof-independent set of criteria to establish the truth of a claim, one that does not require me to use deduction/induction/abduction? I provided two candidate conditions (beauty and elegance) that could help us in deciding whether a proposition is a truth. While I must admit that some logic is involved - checking whether a proposition satisfies the criteria set down - it's not the same as inferring to the proposition (the conclusion) from some premises.

An example should help illustrate my point:

Logic mode
1.IF P THEN Q
2. P
Ergo,
3. Q [1, 2 Modus Ponens]

Truthiness mode
1. Truth has the qualities w, x, y [proof is not included among these qualities]
2. Q has the qualities w, x, y
Ergo,
3. Q [1, 2]

Of course truth≠proof but you can't deny that proof is a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth of claims; another way of saying that is logic (argumentation) is key to, a prerequisite for, the veracity of a proposition. — TheMadFool

Sure I can, because it is not, Fool. Proof only obtains in logic or mathematics. Empirical claims, for instance, only require corroborative evidence (so logic is not "a prerequisite' :roll:) and/or sound inferences. I exist – no argument is required, but nothing expressed by that proposition is in question. And a tautology are necessarily true without argument.

Sure I can, because it is not, Fool. Proof only obtains in logic or mathematics. Empirical claims, for instance, only require corroborative evidence (so logic is not "a prerequisite' :roll:) and/or sound inferences. I exist – no argument is required, but nothing expressed by that proposition is in question. And a tautology are necessarily true without argument — 180 Proof

Logic is absolutely necessary to establish truth, at least under the current epistemological paradigm - rationality. How could you object to that? Unless of course you have good reasons to do so. See?

Even as a nonmathematician, I simply can't imagine that such a beautiful/elegant equation like Euler's Identity could be false. It has to be true, nothing so aesthetically pleasing could be false. — TheMadFool

I bet you would say the same thing if the golden ratio, or any other important mathematical constant, was there instead of pi, and didn’t already know Euler’s identity is true.

Initially, I wanted to discuss truthiness in the context of ethics, my intuitive response being that to a good person what would happen is moral laws will have a truthiness to them - no logic, no argument, no reasoning, just the firm belief that moral laws simply have to be true. — TheMadFool

So a good person is one who is dogmatic and guided by blind faith?

Does it not occur to them that at least some of their moral laws might be flawed?

I bet you would say the same thing if the golden ratio, or any other important mathematical constant, was there instead of pi, and didn’t already know Euler’s identity is true. — Amalac

Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. Having only caught but a glimpse of that side - its innate beauty - I'm not in a position to state anything definitive. The OP was meant to be exploratory - could truths have qualities besides logic that make them true? As far as I could tell, beauty & elegance seem worthy candidates. So, if a proposition P is aesthetically pleasing and graceful in form, it possesses truthiness and will be declared true sans proof/evidence.

So a good person is one who is dogmatic and guided by blind faith? — Amalac

Truthiness is not fideistic. The objective is to come up with criteria for truthiness that make sense.

Does it not occur to them that at least some of their moral laws might be flawed? — Amalac

Those propositions that are mistakes will lack truthiness.

.

I have only given "good reasons" that show your claims are false.

So how can we tell whether or not they have truthiness? — Amalac

That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)

My mind draws a blank except for the widely held belief that truth has an aesthetic quality and elegance to it that would put women to shame.

Why does e to the i π + 1= 0 have truthiness, but not e to the i Φ + 1 = 0 ? — Amalac

Euler's identity is a classic example. I mentioned it because unlike other formulae, its status insofar as truthiness is concerned, is not so controversial to mess up my thesis.

I have only given "good reasons" that show your claims are false. — 180 Proof

Yes, proving my point that epistemology is under the sway of rationality (proof/evidence/logic). Could you, surely something a man as erudite as you can do, be a tad bit poetic and tell me, as rudely as you can but...in the most eloquent way too that...I'm talking, as you once said, out of my bung hole. :grin:

:roll: Stop flatulating to move the goal posts. We're discussing "truth" and "logic", not knowledge (i.e. epistemology). Oh yeah and "truthiness" (doxa or bias) too.

Stop flatulating to move the goal posts. We're discussing "truth" and "logic", not knowledge (i.e. epistemology). Oh yeah and "truthiness" (doxa or bias) too. — 180 Proof

:lol:

My question is simple:

Are there proof-independent qualities truth possesses?

If yes, we could find them and then use them as a criteria for discovering truths completely independent of arguments/proofs.

Epistemology is relevant because we're here talking about truths, its stock-in-trade.

Are there proof-independent qualities truth possesses? — TheMadFool

I've already answered this question. Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty. :yawn:

I've already answered this question. Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty — 180 Proof

:ok: :lol: You've been helpful, as always.

I forgot to congratulate you on your mathematical discovery. Good job!

Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty. :yawn: — 180 Proof

This is how I imagine, even contemplate (strange loop-like) — 180 Proof

Your comment from Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox

Merely from knowing the formula's meaning, one can infer its truth or falsity without any effort to derive it in the old-fashioned way, which requires one to trudge methodically "upwards" from the axioms. This is not just peculiar; it is astonishing. Normally, one cannot merely look at what a mathematical conjecture says and simply appeal to the content of that statement on its own to deduce whether the statement is true or false. — Douglas Hofstadter (Downward Causality - Strange Loop)

:chin:

???

Never mind. Gracias.