If truth is not an axiom that can be applied universally then are such truth statements as the first one in this OP useless? — invicta

If they were useless, they wouldn't be used. If they were not widely and frequently useful, they would not be so widely and frequently used.
All communication takes place in a context, is coherent only because it contains an internal logic, and is useful only so all participants in a conversation understand both these things. A truth is useless only when one attempts to transpose from one function to another.

But are such statements as the first one of any value to the philosopher when its truth value changes with the conditions (context) from which the statement is mad

Depends on the philosopher and the question that philosopher wants to probe.

Interesting.

Take the following statement below as not only being out of context but also being untruthful.

All red apples are sweet

In the above statement would you say it’s useless by the mere fact that it’s out of context or that it is untrue ?
~~~

Now let’s turn to a truthful universal statement

Apples grow on trees

The above has informative value in any given context as it informs the uninformed that apples grow on trees.

are such statements as the first one of any value to the philosopher when its truth value changes with the conditions (context) from which the statement is made? — invicta

On the other hand statements such as the ones in the second examples are tautologies but in a sense are more valuable in modern setting as they’re the basis of calculators and more complex computational machines which we rely on in the modern world. — invicta

Yes, truths that are modulated according to conditions are useful, if that is what you are getting at.

For instance, I might say about a person's decision to act in a certain way:

If one has the ability to have chosen otherwise, then one has free will insofar as the truth of different possible future outcomes is concerned. That is a pretty basic way of summarizing compatibilism.

But in the second quote you seem to be talking about algorithms. Algorithms - as exemplified by the Turing machine, which can implement any conceivable computer algorithm given enough time and a long enough strip of paper - are processes that we follow to make calculations or solve problems. They do not have to be tautological, or even true, but rather (ideally) efficient, possessing a finite number of steps, and directed at solving some specific problem.

Take the following statement below as not only being out of context but also being untruthful

All red apples are sweet

In the above statement would you say it’s useless be the mere fact that it’s out of context or that it is untrue ? — invicta

It could be useful even out of context if it were an integral part of a list of steps in an algorithm, which doesn't require truthfulness but rather something more contextual directed at solving a problem.

If it were just untrue then it just wouldn't be a good basis for a philosophical argument.

Apples grow on trees

The above has informative value in any given context as it informs the uninformed that apples grow on trees — invicta

This is better for a basis for an argument because it is universally true and also informs.

All red apples are sweet

In the above statement would you say it’s useless by the mere fact that it’s out of context or that it is untrue ? — invicta

It's useless in describing apples, but useful in illustrating an untruthful statement for the purpose of discussion.

Apples grow on trees

The above has informative value in any given context as it informs the uninformed that apples grow on trees. — invicta

It's informative regarding the provenance of apples - and meaningful to anyone who either wants to know something about apples and is willing to continue the investigation (since, obviously, this snippet of truth is insufficient). It's completely useless in response to such questions as: "What colour is this thing? and "Is this apple sweet?", utter nonsense in the context of celestial navigation and meaningless noise to speaker of Mandarin.


[

The algorithm for determining if red apples are sweet is true.

Step 1 is apple sweet true ? No ? Go step two
Step 2 is red apple sweet true ? No ? Go step three
Step 3 is green apple sweet ? No? Go step four
Step 4 output: green apple sweet no. Red apple sweet no.

//

Step 1 is apple sweet ? Yes/No - unable to determine give input.

Input 50% apple sweet/50% apple bitter

Step 2 determine is apple sweet.

Output Apple 50% chance of being sweet.

Input 3 is red apple sweet? Yes/no, 50% chance

Output 50% chance

Is this apple sweet?", utter nonsense in the context of celestial navigation and meaningless noise to speaker of Mandarin. — Vera Mont

In the context of a farmer wanting to grow bitter apples to make Cider then useful, correct? In the context of the same farmer wanting to buy a rocket ship from profits of such farming useful, correct ?
In the context of the purchase of star maps for celestial navigation useful correct ?

In conclusion determining if an Apple is sweet or bitter enables the farmer to go to the stars.

Correct!

Yes, that appears to be correct. But how does that relate to truthfulness? That algorithm is just useful for determining whether red apples are sweet. It doesn't actually tell us that red apples are sweet; we would need to test the two types of apples. That's the point I'm making.

In the context of a farmer wanting to grow bitter apples to make Cider then useful, correct? — invicta

I think he already knows they grow on trees.

In conclusion determining if an Apple is sweet or bitter enables the farmer to go to the stars — invicta

No, it doesn't, and the fact that they grow on trees has no effect on their flavour.

And putting a response in the context of the wrong question makes no point.

No, it doesn't, and the fact that they grow on trees has no effect on their flavour.

And putting a response in the context of the wrong question makes no point. — Vera Mont

You are missing the point. Your failure in seeing the relevance of a celestial star map to the cider brewer is about connecting the dots from revenue generation via brewing cider to their ambition to go to space.

It doesn't actually tell us that red apples are sweet; we would need to test the two types of apples. That's the point I'm making. — ToothyMaw

The algo would tell you that given enough info whether the apple is sweet or bitter before you even tasted it.

But as a general principle and the point of this thread is that decontextualising some statements can alter its truth value from true, too uncertain to completely untrue.

I say some statements above because there are other statements that are universally true irrespective of context such as 1+1 = 2

I must point out too that there’s a subtle difference between knowledge and truth as well with truth retaining an objective relationship to some aspect of reality whereas knowledge being more subjective in some ways such as the personal knowledge that the Apple you just ate is indeed sweet.

'1+1=2' is only true within a certain system of signs, so is conditional in its own way, isn't it?

You are missing the point. Your failure in seeing the relevance of a celestial star map to the cider brewer is about connecting the dots from revenue generation via brewing cider to their ambition to go to space. — invicta

That may be so, but it's not in the example you presented.

But as a general principle and the point of this thread is that decontextualising some statements can alter its truth value from true, too uncertain to completely untrue — invicta

No, it can't.
It can, however, render it inapplicable, irrelevant or nonsensical. Just as you demonstrated.

It can, however, render it inapplicable, irrelevant or nonsensical. Just as you demonstrated. — Vera Mont

Isn’t that the same thing as untrue, uncertain etc…I think you’re just using different words …

That would be a question of mathematics itself and its construction.

Yes signs indicate operation as a given, if they did not then the statement 1+1 = 2 would be meaningless.

Well, 1+1 = 10 in a binary system, to take the simplest example where the signs to the left of the '=' might imply a different sign to the right. I never grasp why 1+1=2 is taken as some sort of truism in all contexts, that's all I mean.

Isn’t that the same thing as untrue, uncertain etc…I think you’re just using different words … — invicta

I'm using different words that mean different things, because I intend to convey different meanings.
The truth or falsehood of a statement, such as "Mammals are warm-blooded animals." is unaffected by the fact that they are not applicable to question such as "Do apples taste like bananas?"
It doesn't matter how convoluted a line from the taxonomy of animals to the chemical components of flavour, the statement remains true.

The truth or falsehood of a statement, such as "Mammals are warm-blooded animals." is unaffected by the fact that they are not applicable to question such as "Do apples taste like bananas?" — Vera Mont

I don’t understand you here. What are you trying to say ?

It doesn't matter how convoluted a line from the taxonomy of animals to the chemical components of flavour, the statement remains true. — Vera Mont

Again this is incoherent please can you tell me what you’re trying to say as I don’t understand the way it’s been written.

1+1 = 2 is true in all circumstances because it’s a calculation performed on values which are simple by their numerical nature — invicta

No. Better stay away from mathematics for your "true under any circumstances" example.

Again this is incoherent — invicta

The whole apple sequence is.
1. Red = sweet: F
2. Apples grow on trees: T
Neither statement, nor their respective falsehood and truth, is affected by farmers, their nationality, cider press or rocketship.
A The statement is either true or false.
B The statement is either responsive to a particular question, or it is not.
A and B are not interdependent: either, both or neither may be true without affecting the truth or falsehood of 1. and 2.
C: Truth is not context-dependent.

It's sentences that are true or false.

What a sentence says is dependent on it's circumstances (context, language, purpose, consequence, and so on)

Hence it is sentences that are "context driven"; not truth.

Hence it is sentences that are "context driven"; not truth. — Banno

What could this possibly mean? Are use suggesting that context "drives" the sentence like a person would "drive" a car, a team of horses, or a herd of cattle? What exactly is context doing here which qualifies your use of "driven", to say that the sentence is driven by context?

it seems to me, that it would be more appropriate to propose that it is what the sentence says (it's meaning) which is true or false, and this, "meaning", is dependent on the context. Doesn't that make more sense to you?

@Banno

If a truth’s manifold ways of expression includes sentences via vocalisation as well as visual representation then truth can be context dependent or universal as I’ve tried to demonstrate.

For example

All trees have foliage is only contextually true when it’s summer and partially true as coniferous trees have foliage all year round.

In any given context the below sentence would be true:

All trees are made of wood

C: Truth is not context-dependent. — Vera Mont

Supposing then the farmer utters this sentence in the middle of summer.

Today is a hot day.

The thermometer would agree reading 40Celsius.

These two truth values are not only context dependent but interdependent as a hot day is affirmed to be true by the thermometer reading.

It is context dependent because it would not be a hot day in the middle of winter when the thermometer reads -5 Celsius.

And as the truthfulness of such a statement depends on mutual agreement between two or more subjects then it’s no longer subjective (context dependent) but objective (context independent) for certain statements only which are subject to change such as current heat level.

To sum up, objectively true statements are only true if accord can be given to them by the subjects to which such a statement applies hence Today is a hot day would no longer be true objectively when the mercury falls but it could be true to an Eskimo whose conception of heat is different to a farmer.

But this does not include certain statements which hold true universally such as Apples Grow on Trees. You could negate this of course by growing your own Apple artificially in a lab without the tree at all (somehow) or statements like the The Earth is Round. Objectively true, no context needed, truth value remains absolute.

Supposing then the farmer utters this sentence in the middle of summer.

Today is a hot day.

The thermometer would agree reading 40Celsius. — invicta

That is not a T/F statement; it is a subjective judgment.
A thermometer measures increments of heat; it does not indicate truth or falsehood.
A day is a measure of time, one rotation of a planet; it has no temperature.

The statement as written is a typical human habit: the imprecise use of terminology.
It would be more accurately stated as: "The air feels hot to me today."
If both participants in a conversation have a similar metabolism and speak the same language, the speaker does not need to phrase it this way to get his meaning across, because the hearer automatically fills in the omitted and information and compensates for the misattribution of property.

And as the truthfulness of such a statement depends on mutual agreement between two or more subjects then it’s no longer subjective (context dependent) but objective (context independent) — invicta

It is just the other way around.
Linguistic intuition and shared experience do not influence objective truth,while subjective truth cannot be verified from independent external sources.

Would you then say that truth is relative in this given scenario.

The temperature is high right now!

(at 40Celsius)

Or would such a statement have no relevance to truth relatively or absolutely?

Would you then say that truth is relative in this given scenario.

The temperature is high right now
(at 40Celsius)

Or would such a statement have no relevance to truth relatively or absolutely? — invicta

It is not a T/F proposition; it's an opinion or observation by a conscious entity, made in imprecise language.
In order to be true or false, its non-sloppily worded version would read:
The temperature [ of an unspecified physical substance] is higher [on the Celsius scale] than 39 and lower than 41 degrees.
All comparative descriptions are relative; only true in relation to something else, whether the "else" is stated or not, understood or not. All statements regarding quantity are relative; therefore the term "truth value" is applicable only in a particular context.
It's not the "truth value" of the statement that's in question but the applicability and relevance of the statement to the topic of a communication.

In short, truth is not a property of subjective observations; it resides in the contextual judgment of the observer. The only "truth value" such a statement could have is in the sincerity of the person making it - which can perhaps be verified by a lie detector... if lie detectors were reliable.

"Truth" conceptually is a mess, but I think generally, the idea is that by calling something true, you are asserting it is independent of the context of the speaker, and not that it is context-independent. The logic for why it's independent of the speaker is based on rules, such as the rules of a language. "It is true that the first letter of a sentence should be capitalised in English", for example. Or based on agreed-upon rules for measuring something, like "It is true that Messi is an accomplished soccer player". There is no such thing as "accomplishment", it's a man-made concept, but it's so apparent that Messi should be by any person's account considered accomplished as a soccer player, that one could call it a truth.

"Truth" is an entirely man-made concept, in reality, "truth" doesn't exist, things simply are, I suppose. There aren't necessarily any agreed-upon rules for this, just a test that an individual or group made up. Whether that actually makes this subjective or not, is the thing that's context-dependent, I'd say.

And as the truthfulness of such a statement depends on mutual agreement between two or more subjects then it’s no longer subjective (context dependent) but objective (context independent) for certain statements only which are subject to change such as current heat level. — invicta

Hmm, agreement between two or more subjects produces truth and objectivity? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

If two or more parties agree by experience that it is currently hot then that is truth.

How do you get conspiracy out of that?

If two parties agree that the moon landings were faked then we’re in conspiracy territory indeed that is if the majority consensus says that the moon landings we’re in fact real.

In effect truth is a matter of agreed upon consensus reflecting reality.

If it’s agreed consensus with no basis in reality then indeed conspiracy.

"Truth" is an entirely man-made concept, in reality, "truth" doesn't exist, things simply are, I suppose. There aren't necessarily any agreed-upon rules for this, just a test that an individual or group made up. Whether that actually makes this subjective or not, is the thing that's context-dependent, I'd say. — Judaka

Truth is self-evident and its power lies in its ability to describe reality.

Triangles have 3 sides.
The ocean is made of water.
The earth is round.

The above three statements cannot be disputed in terms of them being truthful. They are self evident.

Truth is used to convey truthful information to another person and is the progenitor of the scientific method and inquiry.

What is true what is not, is a very important question to ask as it propels one towards the knowable or deception.

Truth remains the truth even if there are no minds to perceive it as reality exists independent of minds. So to claim that truth is man made as you have is to ignore reality as every truth must reflect reality, or the way things are.