It's indisputable, because there is nothing in it to dispute: it's not a claim; it's a definition. — Vera Mont
CorrectAnother example would be that the creation of the rules of chess had no truth value, — Judaka
Of course. As a claim, it can be disputed, tested, verified and proven....but that, for example, you can't move your pawns backwards is a rule in chess, there is a truth value
Of course. As a claim, it can be disputed, tested, verified and proven....
.... within the confines of its context.
Obviously, you can move a pawn backwards; it's just that the rules of chess forbid you do it during a game. If anyone doubts that - and they can - you show them the rule book — Vera Mont
I think this is because of the relationship between the rules and conventions with the claim, as well as the cultural attitude towards these rules and conventions. Do you agree? I'm not saying the laws of mathematics and the rules of chess are on the same level, but as far as truth is concerned, it's not about that. — Judaka
In what way do you agree? It seems that you are unwilling to label things as true when they're true by convention or manmade rules. — Judaka
It is true within provision constraints, by reason of cause (you named him) and effect (he answers to it). The provisional constraints are: if the ownership of dogs and the convention of naming are accepted by claimant and questioner, and no other claimant has previously given the same dog a different name, and the dog complies by answering to the name.If I name my dog Mark, is it true that his name is Mark? — Judaka
You mean in that one is a global constant, rigorously testable and verifiable, while the other is ephemeral fancy, subject to change from place to place and time to time? Yes, we might.we may disagree on why it is that laws of mathematics are different from the rules of chess — Judaka
There is another statement I find disputable, but won't dispute further.I think our conclusions are the same. — Judaka
I made a thread about skepticism and said that we cannot coherently deny that language transmits meaning because by understanding this sentence you have proven that language transmits meaning. — Andrew4Handel
I don't agree that facts are controlled by public opinion. — Vera Mont
It is true within provision constraints, by reason of cause (you named him) and effect (he answers to it). — Vera Mont
No, it's true by convention. Your opinion and your argument about the dog needing to comply to the owner calling its name is just something you made up. — Judaka
It's not just the definition of words that is defined by convention, but but a lot of things. — Judaka
Really? In that case, I name you Ruby Tuesday, and from this day forward, that is your name, by the conventions of naming and ownership -- oh, by the way, I just bought you for 300 shekels. You'd better be worth it! — Vera Mont
A lot of things may be. But the Earth was never flat, and late-comer apes, however many conventions they invent, or wilful ignorance, or self-delusion can't turn an uniformed guess into a fact. — Vera Mont
Thanks for buying me and giving me a sweet name, though I am arguing the exact opposite of this. It's because the rules and conventions for naming exist that we can't just make up whatever rules we want. — Judaka
If any of the provisions are missing, then the facts are more correctly stated as: "I call my dog Mark." If he doesn't answer to Mark, then it is not his name.It [that the dog's name is Mark] is true within provision constraints, by reason of cause (you named him) and effect (he answers to it). The provisional constraints are:if the ownership of dogs and the convention of naming are accepted by claimant and questioner, and no other claimant has previously given the same dog a different name, and the dog complies by answering to the name.
It is not true in any universal or eternal sense. — Vera Mont
Do you value truth or something? — unenlightened
But I do resent baseless accusations. — Vera Mont
So you don't value truth, but you resent falsehood? — unenlightened
The first part is negative; the second, positive.That seems a bit negative... — unenlightened
Do cripples value crutches? :chin:Do people value truth? — Andrew4Handel
I suppose history and math have failed too ... When does it ever make sense, Andrew, to blame a tool because fools neglect or misuse it? :roll:Morality has failed ... — Andrew4Handel
Do cripples value crutches? — 180 Proof
What leads to relativism isn't that there's no truth, it's that there's too much truth. The volume of truth is incomprehensibly immense. — Judaka
How about non-existent? I don't think philosophy is a quest for truth at all; it's more a search - quest is too romantic a word - for some modus vivendi that would yield the best results - best, that is, by the philosopher's reckoning, which is formed by his time and culture and experience and convictions.In this scenario I think a philosophers quest for truth is somewhat dubious .... — Andrew4Handel
the philosopher is trying to either prop up some of societies pre-existing paradigms/values or advocate for his or her own ideology rather than being unbiased — Andrew4Handel
:100: :fire:I don't think philosophy is a quest for truth at all; it's more a search - quest is too romantic a word - for some modus vivendi that would yield the best results - best, that is, by the philosopher's reckoning, which is formed by his time and culture and experience and convictions. — Vera Mont
You could just as easily say "I live in a big white house with four columns supporting a portico on Pennsylvania Avenue," and people could find the house all right, yet the statement might still be untrue. — Vera Mont
Words must transmit facts. — Andrew4Handel
We do. Not always accurately.I am just thinking aloud here but truth and falsity do seem to be evaluations we can make of mental states or properties available to consciousness and the act of consciously evaluating. — Andrew4Handel
Of course. That's what critical thinking is. The more actively aware you are of this, the more effective your thinking will be. The first and biggest hurdle to overcome is fear of questioning received wisdom. The second is learning to trust yourself.But it seems we actually have a large amount of verifiable facts available to our mind which I think serves a good foundation for forming further factual beliefs. — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.