Triangles have 3 sides. — invicta

Of course it's true: that's how it was invented: What is a triangle? A closed figure with three sides and three angles.

The ocean is made of water. — invicta

What is an ocean? Can you define it anything other than water?

Once you make a general statement beyond the confines of the definition, it becomes debatable; the more description you add and the less precise your language, the farther you wander into subjective territory.

What shape is the Earth?

The earth is round. — invicta

Approximation of a truth; imprecise.

While the Earth appears to be round when viewed from the vantage point of space, it is actually closer to an ellipsoid. However, even an ellipsoid does not adequately describe the Earth’s unique and ever-changing shape.

Facts are not man-made, but they are perceived by humans with variable degrees of accuracy and reported with variable degrees of precision - and sincerity.

All trees are made of wood — invicta

Family trees?

In any case round or ellipsoid the function of truth is an accurate description of reality.

There are statements which by their nature are undeniable in their claims I.e truth/s

The sun emits light.
Cows don’t make eggs
Chickens have feathers until you pluck them.
The heart pumps blood around the body.

@Vera Mont

Which of the above statements would you like to dispute and get anal with?

Ok you can add fake plastic Xmas trees too, you get the gist.

you get the gist. — invicta

But I don't think you do. Any truth can be set out in a statement. It is the statement that is context dependent, not it's truth.

Is truth always context dependent? Yes, because it is statements that are true, and stements are 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. — Banno

:100: :fire:

Thanks (even though its lost on most of them).

As family trees don’t refer to actual trees but conceptual generational lineage then that statement seems true regardless of context.

Plastic trees of course undermine in a way, but only in the way I did not anticipate the artificial trees as human invention, thus not real trees.

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

The oceans on Titan are methane.

Which of the above statements would you like to dispute and get anal with? — invicta

Not disputing the truth of facts. I was asking you whether there is any extra information conveyed by repeating the definition of something, and further asserting that the more approximate information you add, the more farther you get from fact and closer to opinion.

The sun emits light.
Cows don’t make eggs
Chickens have feathers until you pluck them.
The heart pumps blood around the body. — invicta

All of these can be true statements. So can a great many others. Does that make them "context-driven?" Cows won't make eggs, even if you put them in a rocket-ship bound for the moon and translate the sentence to Lunatic.

True if verifiable

The oceans on Titan are methane. — Banno

Are they still technically "oceans", or do we just use the term because they resemble bodies of water that we observe on Earth? The same can be said of family trees and the tree of life - which are metaphors - and artificial constructs made to imitate trees.

The statement can be easily modified to say

Oceans are made of liquid.

In that case it would hold true if it was on earth or some far flung moon.

As family trees don’t refer to actual trees — invicta

My family tree is "actual".

True if verifiable — invicta

It'll be true, or it'll be false, whether you are able to verify it or not. Truth doesn't care what you believe. or why.

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

Truth is not an axiom. Axioms are statements that are taken to be true.

So I'm nto sure what you are asking about. Can you paraphrase? "The sky is blue" will be true only if the sky is blue. And, as it turns out, the sky (here, now, as the sun rises) is indeed blue.

The statement can be easily modified to say

Oceans are made of liquid. — invicta

The sentence can be modified; the definition of "ocean" can be modified. You can even modify both to the point of gibberish, but that still won't make it context-dependent.

Oceans are made of liquid. — invicta

Ah, nice. You have oceans of counterexamples.

You see the word ocean gives context to the whole statement otherwise you’re right.

How does the word ocean give context ? It gives context to the liquid mass, for which without it would not be an ocean.

Ah, nice. You have oceans of counterexamples. — Banno

You’re finally starting to see the wood for the trees.

So I'm nto sure what you are asking about. Can you paraphrase? "The sky is blue" will be true only if the sky is blue. And, as it turns out, the sky (here, now, as the sun rises) is indeed blue. — Banno

This is the point I’m trying to make as the sky can appear red when setting. So truth changes value from blue to red.

Cows don’t make eggs — invicta

But see Dairy Repro 101: Anatomy and Function in a Dairy Cow

This is the point I’m trying to make as the sky can appear red when setting. So truth changes value from blue to red. — invicta

You are saying it wrong. Truth did not change value. The sentence"the sky is blue" was true, and now it isn't. It's the sky that changed, not "truth".

How does the word ocean give context ? — invicta

It doesn't. That is a word, and nothing more. If you have a solid (when frozen) definition of ocean, it provides an object or image to place into a senetence, which can then become a communication, which has a context.
But if you've modified the word to where it might as easily be a glass of milk or a barrel of gasoline, then "ocean" no longer refers to large body of salt water. It is meaningless without elaboration: e.g. an ocean of methane, an ocean of counterexamples.

Language is not just about moving ideas from head to head. Indeed, that metaphor is very problematic.

That is a word, and nothing more — Vera Mont

A word which of course refers to a certain large body of water/liquid etc.

If there was no water or liquid upon it, it would just be landmass.

Hence context of words within sentences referring to actual things in the real world being important aspect in articulation of truths.

Thanks (even though its lost on most of them). — 180 Proof

It's the engineers, again. Worse than christians.

The sky changed colour of course there’s no denying that.

The truth changed too because of a lack of constancy in the colour of the sky.

Another truthful statement would be:

The sky can change color.

It’s truth wrapped up nicely in a sentence, deny it if you like, you’d be denying the truth, the sentence expressing said truth and natural phenomena.

The truth changed too despite a lack of constancy in the colour of the sky. — invicta

No, what was true changed; the truth didn't.

What you are suggesting in the OP remains unclear, but...

There is a difference between the nature of truth, and the things which are true; between the use of "...is true" and the things which are true or not. The former can remain constant, while the latter changers. SO

"The sky is blue" is true

holds at one time, and

"The sky is red" is true

holds at another; and what changes is the colour of the sky, not the nature of "...is true".

In both cases - indeed, in all cases,

"P" is true iff P

remains so. For whatever statement you substitute for P. in this regard, "...is true" is not context dependent.

Are they still technically "oceans" — Vera Mont

'Technically"?

Yes, they are oceans.

No, what was true changed; the truth didn't. — Banno

Are you being serious here?

I will take it as being serious.

What is the truth then regarding the color of the sky? One of the properties of the sky is its ability to change colour depending on the position of the sun, so both statements are true: the sky is red when it is indeed red and the sky is blue when it’s blue.

But so what, the truth changed with the colour, why is this a big deal to you ?

Are you being serious here? — invicta

Very.

The problem seems to me to be that you have not set out the issue you wish to address with sufficient clarity. And I think that if you were to do so, you might see that there is no issue.

What I would have you notice is that what is changing is the colour of the sky, not the nature of truth.

Think carefully about the difference between the nature of truth on the one hand, and what is or isn't true.

Here's a sentence about the nature of truth: For any statement "P",

"P" is true if and only if P

Now I think this is pretty much as much as can be said about the nature of truth.

Here's a sentence about the sky:

The sky is blue

And another:

"The sky is blue" is true

Notice that this last is first about the sentence "the sky is blue" and second about the colour of the sky?

What is the truth then regarding the color of the sky? One of the properties of the sky is its ability to change colour so both statements are true the sky is red when it is indeed red and the sky is blue when it’s blue. — invicta

Indeed, and that is a way to phrase what I have been saying. It is the sky that changes colour. So what is or isn't true can change; but that is not a change in the nature of truth.


Try it this way. Consider
"The kettle is boiling" is true
and
"The tree has three branches" is true.

What changes between these two sentence is the stuff in quotes, not the predicate "...is true". It is the same in both. It does not change with the context.

Compare this with your title.

I do not see how your requirements for what is the truth counteract my OP at all.

I’ve distinguished between two types of truths the constants and the variables right from the outset when I laid out my OP, so I’m sticking with it as I remain unconvinced by your assertions so far that truth is unchangable and not derived from context or independent of context.

The point of my OP is to defend both the changeable and unchangeable truths (constant and variable)

…i.e. both contextual truths and truths holding on their own independent of context.