I think you are using the words "information," "data," and "justification" in non-standard ways.

why is that, if you'd care?

why is that, if you'd care? — Varde

Normally, justification is a process by which the certainty of the truth of an assertion is measured. An untrue claim would not normally be considered justified.

It's all just equally happening. Truths and falsehoods are real.

truth and justification do not necessarily fall under the same category.

I cannot justifiably say any claim is NOT data, nor can I say it's data that points to a precise meaning, therefore all claims are justifiable. — Varde

Maybe you need to provide an example of this principal in action. There are some claims for which there is no good evidence. Can you eat battery acid to combat a vitamin B deficiency?

truth and justification do not necessarily fall under the same category. — Varde

In a philosophical context "a justification for one’s belief consists of good reasons for thinking that the belief in question is true." As I noted, you seem to be giving the word a different meaning.

All claims are justifiable. — Varde

That one isn't. QED.

If a person means more than what they say, can a claim ever be justified?

I do not understand what you were asking for here. Do you mean in terms that we should express every action we take or in the claims we answer about.

Any money might be fake, therefore all money is worthless.

I take in a lot of information daily and all of it I hear and understand, even if it is incorrect.

I cannot justifiably say any claim is NOT data, nor can I say it's data that points to a precise meaning, therefore all claims are justifiable.

I mean, what is printed here may be all I want you to hear, but any fray may give an imperfect address.

If you are uninformed laterally in all cases, is any case residual?

If a person means more than what they say, can a claim ever be justified?

But not all art is interpreted the right way... — Varde

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." - Benjamin Franklin

Or in other words, be very careful in what you accept as real. Information is merely data and data itself isn't facts or even necessarily useful. Claims that are not backed up data and facts are not as valid as claims that are, nor are claims backed up by faulty data/facts as valid as claims are backed up correct data/facts. it sounds like something so simple that even a first grader should be able to do it, but as adults we are easily tricked by simple propaganda and other misinformation that often caters to our lazy way of interpreting the world around us.

As another forum member named 180 Proof often said "That which is argued without reason or anything to back it, can easily be dismissed without anything reason." (Sorry 180 Proof if this isn't really worded exactly the right way)

If you believe this is an issue for you then I suggest that you try to better develop your critical thinking skills and at least understand things like logical fallacies:

15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

List of fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

While an argument that has a fallacy isn't necessarily wrong, usually finding and knowing about a fallacy in an argument can help you know why it is flawed.

As to the question as to how far you need to sharpen you own critical thinking skills beyond what they are is only something you can answer. Hopefully this answers your dilemma which is more or less true for the rest of us as well

Methinks the OP is onto something really important. It happened to Christianity. Church Councils were convened in which Christian doctrines were adopted not by argumentation but by vote (argumentum ad populum). The next generation of theologians then went to work on these tenets, reasoning backwards to axioms that would support them. This is just a hypothesis of course; cum grano salis. Modern psychology has a term for this: rationalization!

truth and justification do not necessarily fall under the same category. — Varde

In a philosophical context "a justification for one’s belief consists of good reasons for thinking that the belief in question is true." As I noted, you seem to be giving the word a different meaning. — T Clark

Are there any non-philosophical contexts where this does not hold?

I’ll offer that to “justify” means, at the very least etymologically, to make, else evidence, as just; i.e., as right, correct, or fair/good, and, hence, to evidence as true in many of the term’s commonly used senses (from conformity to what is real to the moral fidelity of being loyal/faithful to that implicitly addressed – be this some other, the ideal of objectivity or goodness, or something else).

There is the dichotomy between moral justification and factual justification - and there is equivocation between the two often enough - but to me they both yet pivot around the evidencing of X as just.

So conceived: In practice, justification can never be philosophically perfected for it typically, if not always, leads into an infinite regress of justifications for previously given justifications. This though in principle that which is correct/true could hypothetically be endlessly justified (shown to be true) were that span of time available to one to so endlessly justify. However, that which is not correct/true can be conclusively evidenced wrong, false, and hence unjustifiable via contradictions in reasoning, for one prominent example.

Interested to see where differences with this take on justification might take place for anyone that might have them.

But, to address the OP: if the offered definition holds, and if all claims are justifiable, then it would be concluded that all claims can be evidenced to be correct/true, including all deceptive, false, or otherwise wrong claims. This line or reasoning then concludes in the absurdity of logical trivialism.

The next generation of theologians then went to work on these tenets, reasoning backwards to axioms that would support them. This is just a hypothesis of course; cum grano salis. Modern psychology has a term for this: rationalization! — Agent Smith

Sure, but in this sense rationalization conceals true motives and is thus a form of deception, even if only self-deception. Last I remember, the theologians you speak of have more than a few contradictions in their justifications to contend with.

[A]ll claims are justifiable. — Varde

Rationalized. :roll:

:up:

:clap:

As another forum member named 180 Proof often said "That which is argued without reason or anything to back it, can easily be dismissed without anything reason." (Sorry 180 Proof if this isn't really worded exactly the right way) — dclements

No worries. That's a paraphrase of my paraphrase of Hitchens' Razor

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I cannot justifiably say any claim is NOT data, nor can I say it's data that points to a precise meaning, therefore all claims are justifiable. — Varde

I think this an incorrect argument. Let's see the meaning of the 3 basic elements involved here:
"Justifiable" means able to be shown to be right or reasonable.
"Data" refer to facts, i.e. things that are known or proved to be true.
"Claim" is an assertion that something is true.
So, we can say that data ARE justifiable, since they are known to be true. But claims are only assertions, so they are NEITHER data NOR justifiable.

I’ll offer that to “justify” means, at the very least etymologically, to make, else evidence, as just; i.e., as right, correct, or fair/good, and, hence, to evidence as true in many of the term’s commonly used senses (from conformity to what is real to the moral fidelity of being loyal/faithful to that implicitly addressed – be this some other, the ideal of objectivity or goodness, or something else).

There is the dichotomy between moral justification and factual justification - and there is equivocation between the two often enough - but to me they both yet pivot around the evidencing of X as just. — javra

You're right. I thought about that before I responded to the post. As I noted, in philosophy, "justified" is a word that is often used to indicate the extent to which the truth of a statement has been verified, or more accurately, the extent to which my belief is warranted. In particular, justified true belief is a commonly used definition of knowledge. Looking at the post it seems this is the sense in which Varde was using it.

Sure, but in this sense rationalization conceals true motives and is thus a form of deception, even if only self-deception. Last I remember, the theologians you speak of have more than a few contradictions in their justifications to contend with. — javra

Yep, on target sir/ma'am!

The OP was right on the money. However, as you pointed out, there's going to be inconsistency issues. Axioms will clash. I'm not proficient enough in logic to predict how and where exactly contradictions will appear. Do you have any ideas?

No worries — 180 Proof

But I worry! :chin:

However, as you pointed out, there's going to be inconsistency issues. Axioms will clash. I'm not proficient enough in logic to predict how and where exactly contradictions will appear. Do you have any ideas? — Agent Smith

Hmm. I ascribe to the law/principle of noncontradiction, which expresses that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. For instance, the position of dialetheism (the view that true contradictions occur) cannot be both a true claim and a false claim at the same time and in the same respect. As to justifications for my so ascribing, I'm among those who find true contradictions utterly nonsensical and thereby absurd. Have to make due with the reasoning I have.

Or did you have in mind forethought of future occurrences as regards the unfolding of contradictions? In which case, my knowledge is as falliable as anyone else's.

As far as I can tell, philosophy is chockablock with "contradictions" (thesis-antithesis, the one the general populace is most familiar with being theism-atheism). However, we don't say that is so because different people are theist and atheist.

Extrapolating from there we could say that, for instance, if I am expressing contradictory beliefs, there are at least two persons involved (multiple personality "disorder"). I believe that's the reason for dualism/pluralism - two opposite qualities can't be attributed to the same thing and hence the so-called The One, perforce, must undergo mitosis, figuratively speaking.

I'm specifically referring to the way written word or verbal speech is, when separate to physical expression, not a concise statement(i.e. is at a high percentage an off-key of what was truly meant).

However, claims can be understood, and understood as right or wrong, for example: I say ' I'm going to make a cross with my fingers ' and then show you; there is a true statement. It can be classed a low percentage off-key.

Thus, it's possible to narrow down claims enough to judge optimistically or pessimistically if they are true or false, but all claims, whether false or true, are justified claims.

It is justified it is data.
It is justified it is true because I've seen it.

Seeing it is a true-courier, thus.
A claim itself is not a true-courier, in fact, because of misinterpretion, even if wholly understood.

What I mean may be wrong but there's no way of judging that through the written word here, lest we were being inconcise.

A claim itself is not a true-courier, in fact — Varde

So this claim carries no truth?

No, I personally, and other readers in their analysis carry truth from memories.

You could arrive to the justification that claims can carry truth through a quizzing but not a direct answer, like you were beating out an ideal answer.

No, I personally, and other readers in their analysis carry truth from memories. — Varde

To carry truth from them, memories must contain truth. But memories have proven poor truth reminders.

Methinks the OP is onto something really important. It happened to Christianity. Church Councils were convened in which Christian doctrines were adopted not by argumentation but by vote (argumentum ad populum). The next generation of theologians then went to work on these tenets, reasoning backwards to axioms that would support them. This is just a hypothesis of course; cum grano salis. Modern psychology has a term for this: rationalization! — Agent Smith

:up:

I think you are more or less correct in this in that before now we used to have theologians discuss/argue about whatever the nature of the world around us because they were the only ones "qualified" (according to the church) to do this. Today this I believe has been replaced with something called critical theory which instead theologians we have mostly academia's doing it.

Critical theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

One small issue in your statement however is that if one works backwards to the axioms that are to support our reasoning is that the axioms (self evident truths) is that the axioms themselves really don't hold themselves together and they are only true because we allow they to be true. The reason for this is itself worthy enough for it's own thread, but in a nutshell it really doesn't change the way things work other that to say that any given world view of society, history. etc. is in itself merely a narrative (or paradigm) of how things are which may be true to some degree while a contradicting narrative/paradigm might be equally true.

Narrative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative

An example of two conflicting narratives/paradigms could be the difference in how Americans and Russians perceive the war in Ukraine.

Arigato for the info. It only confirms my suspicion that there's a lot I don't know. Have you heard of reverse mathematics? No, unfortunately, I don't have a link. I hope Google takes you to right online resources. Good luck!