I think we’d all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words “true” or “truth” they have one of two different meanings. — EricH

Correct. Its both a blessing a curse that we use the same words for different contexts, and in each context they have a different meaning. Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" and "True despite my knowledge or beliefs"

“1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. — EricH

Agreed. Kant come up with two terms that attempted to capture these differences. Analytic knowledge is true by virtue of being, and synthetic knowledge is true by experiencing the world and finding what fits.

I don’t think you’re saying that we can use the word “truth” in place of using the phrase “what simply is”. If that were the case then there are much better words - “reality”, “the universe”, existence”, etc - which do not have any additional implication. — EricH

No, I actually was using it as another synonym. :) You do bring a good point though. Perhaps the word 'truth' has becomes such a broadly applied word in culture that it is difficult to use it in a distinct and clear context. The problem is that if we don't lock it in to clear and distinct contexts, then it becomes what I like to call a 'wiggle word'.

Wiggle words are often sore spots in communication. In honest usage with clear communication of context, they're fine. But often times a person will use the term in context A when it is convenient for them, then switch, often unintentionally, to context B use of the term when a weakness of context A appears. Its not that context B has suddenly appeared in the conversation, its that the usage of the word for context A has become context B for this brief period of discussion, and will go right back to context A when convenient.

In my experience, the source of most philosophical issues are poorly defined or misused definitions. So yes, falsehood would be the expression of 'what isn't'. I do think these definitions help clarify the usage better, its just that we get lazy with the terms truth and false. For example, "I know X". It is true that you know X, but it can be equally true that what you know is wrong. The biggest mistake most people make is mistaking 'knowledge' for truth.

Belief is a claim that "X is true" through intent, emotion, and limited rationality. Knowledge is a tool, a process of logic and application that results in what can most reasonably be asserted at the time by anybody in the shoes of that person. In either case, what one believes might be true, and what one knows might be false. Belief, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Belief and knowledge are assessments of truth, and as such often poorly get equated with truth or falsehood themselves. As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.

If you like thinking about concepts like these, I've written a more in depth look at what knowledge is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Following my immediate posts there is a wonderful summary from another poster as well.

Finally your poem made me laugh, so its a success in my book. :D

Another very delayed response here . . .

We’re taking past one another. I will try to clarify. I suspect that I will fail in communicating, but I’ll try again.

To recap what I said, I am attempting to make a very narrow point about the semantics of the words “true”, “truth” “false”, and “falsehood” (and any synonyms).

As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. My position is that there are two uses of these words that work - i.e. that make semantic sense. Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”.

1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another.

With that in mind . . .

Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" and "True despite my knowledge or beliefs" — Philosophim

I read this and am reminded of the old joke about The Lone Ranger and Tonto (it’s considered a bit racist these days).

Anyway, maybe this is how you use the word true, but I suspect that the majority of folks out here would disagree with this.

Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" — Philosophim

For purposes of this discussion I will take it that this is analogous to The Correspondence Theory of Truth (my first definition/usage of the word “truth”). So we agree on this usage.

“1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. — EricH
Agreed. Kant came up with two terms that attempted to capture these differences. Analytic knowledge is true by virtue of being, — Philosophim

Aargh! No! I am not qualified (and have no interest) in discussing Kant, but I am confident in saying that Peano Arithmetic (in fact all mathematics) is a human invention in which we manipulate symbols within specific rules. Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false.

No, I actually was using it as another synonym. — Philosophim

If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:

“According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago”

This is patently absurd (at least it looks that way to me). I am humbly requesting that you refrain from using the word "truth" in this fashion.. It serves no syntactical or semantic purpose and only makes communication massively confusing.

Perhaps the word 'truth' has becomes such a broadly applied word in culture that it is difficult to use it in a distinct and clear context. The problem is that if we don't lock it in to clear and distinct contexts, then it becomes what I like to call a 'wiggle word'. — Philosophim

Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition.

Belief, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. — Philosophim

I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree.

As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word. — Philosophim

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? If so, then you’ve introduced yet a 4th usage of the word “truth” and I strenuously disagree. There ain’t no such thing as “Truth itself”. Or perhaps you are opposed to using the word “Truth” in this way? In which case I agree.

Anyway, just to re-iterate. There are two semantically consistent ways of using the word “truth”. The words “knowledge” and “belief” do not factor into these definitions/usages.

Hi EricH, I wanted to say first of all I love your light hearted style of posting, much appreciated. :)

As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. — EricH

I agree with this.

Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”. — EricH

This is a common mistake among newer philosophers. Any discussion of true and false must involve the context of belief and knowledge in some sense of the discussion. Its because there are a few questions that always pop up? "Do you believe it is true, or do you know it is true?" "What is truth apart from our beliefs and knowledge?" Often times when speaking about 'truth' people mistakenly blend in belief or knowledge and conflate the two. So the division is actually pretty important.

1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another. — EricH

No objection here either. What's important here is that you have clearly established that we are talking about truth as a state of reality, not a belief or something we know.

Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false. — EricH

Almost, we just have to clarify the context. Is it true that 1 captures 'an identity'? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is it a belief, or is it a known truth? After all, we just don't believe that 1+1=2, we know that 1+1=2. 1+1=3 would be false, but this is because we know it to be false. So true and false do apply to mathematics, its just when we have correct math its 'true' and incorrect math is 'false'. Is it a truth apart from knowledge and belief, or is it true in virtue of the knowledge that created math?

If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:

“According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago” — EricH

Close! If there was no existence, then that would be the truth of 'what is'. In this case, 'what isn't'. If it helps, think of the state of A vs not A. A if false if it doesn't exist, and A is true if it does. But if A does not exist I can also say, "It is true that A does not exist". So the same if there was no existence all those years ago.

Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition. — EricH

I don't think it is wiggly though. Truth is, "What is". In the first two cases it is 'what is' apart from belief and knowledge. In the second case it can also be 'What is" despite belief and knowledge. I'm noting that some people also use truth to say, "Its true that I believe X" and "Its true that I know y." In the case of these statements however, it doesn't mean that what one knows or believes is true itself, its that its true that you know or believe it.

Its false that a pink elephant exists (True that it does not exist)
Its true that I believe there is a pink elephant.
Its true that I know there is a pink elephant.

In every case the term true as 'What is" is the same, its just that belief and knowledge introduce a context in which we have to be careful. Is true targeting the state of the person's outlook on A, or whether the underlying outlook A is true or not?

I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree. — EricH

Fair enough.

As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.
— Philosophim
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? — EricH

Hopefully the above clarified the issue. Its basically the difference between the state of our outlooks on A, versus whether A is true or false apart from our outlooks.

Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is.

↪Philosophim Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is. — EnPassant

Causality is why it is what it is. If we have captured causality that is real, then it is true.

If we have captured causality — Philosophim

I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it?

I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich

I think we're having a semantic disagreement. Let me be more specific and you can describe it in whatever terms you would like.

Lets say that science claims that ten tons of force in X direction will result in it traveling Y kilometers in Z direction. We apply the force, and the result happens without the introduction of new variables. Looks like the causal prediction was true.

Lets say that science does the same, no new variables are introduced, but the distance falls short one meter every time. Our causal claim does not match to reality, therefore is not true.

I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich


I think we're having a semantic disagreement. — Philosophim

You can think whatever you want.

Let me be more specific — Philosophim

Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that.

Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that. — Arcane Sandwich

Obviously you're not interested in this discussion. Another day and another post then.

Hi EricH, I wanted to say first of all I love your light hearted style of posting, much appreciated. :) — Philosophim

I'll never understand the level of invective out here. I mean let's face it - we're all a bunch of eccentric cranks out here. Let's have some fun, but don't take it too seriously.

As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. — EricH
I agree with this. — Philosophim

But you're gonna disagree in a moment.

1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another. — EricH
No objection here either. What's important here is that you have clearly established that we are talking about truth as a state of reality, not a belief or something we know. — Philosophim

Suffering succotash! You seemingly just agreed with me above that the word "truth" identifies statements that are true. So I most definitely am not talking about "truth as a state of reality". To repeat, I am talking about the word "truth" as a property of sentences/propositions.

You appear to be using the word "truth" in a completely different way here. Now there's nothing wrong with this - but if so then you need to give that definition and show how it works semantically in specific contexts.

================

Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false. — EricH

Almost, we just have to clarify the context. Is it true that 1 captures 'an identity'? — Philosophim

I don't know what you mean by 'an identity'.

Is it true that 1+1=2? — Philosophim

I can only repeat myself here. If you have one apple in your right hand and one in your left, you have two apples. etc, etc. But "1+1=2" is only true within certain mathematical frameworks (e..g. Peano Arithmetic) and it is only true because it can be derived using the axioms and rules of the framework. There are other mathematical frameworks in which it may not be the case.

Is it a belief, or is it a known truth? — Philosophim

Aargh again. It is neither..

After all, we just don't believe that 1+1=2, we know that 1+1=2. — Philosophim

Sigh - we know no such thing.

1+1=3 would be false, but this is because we know it to be false. — Philosophim

Again we know no such thing. What we do know is that by applying the axioms of Peano Arithmetic we can prove that "1+1=3" is false - but again this is only the case within Peano Arithmetic.

================

Any discussion of true and false must involve the context of belief and knowledge in some sense of the discussion — Philosophim

You spend a lot of time on belief/knowledge, but this is [metaphor alert!] a side show. Of course belief and knowledge are legitimate and important topics of conversation, but they do not affect the semantics of the words "true" and "false". If we say
I believe P.
I know P.
where P is a sentence/proposition about reality/existence/what is/the universe/etc? It is P which is true or false. The words "belief" and "know" are used to indicate the speaker's attitude/assessment/evaluation/judgement/confidence in/etc of the accuracy of P.

==================

Truth is, "What is". — Philosophim

As I said in my first response, this is not a definition, it is a poetic metaphor. The universe/existence/what is/everything that is the case/reality/etc is neither true not false - it simply "is". it is our statements about the universe/existence/what is/everything that is the case/reality/etc that are true or false.

Interestingly enough, @Arcane Sandwich seems to agree with you on this point.

Truth = Reality

What it means:
It mea[n]s that Truth is identical to Reality.

Good enough? — Arcane Sandwich

==================
Summary - I'm doubting that this conversation will be productive moving forward. I'm pretty much repeating the previous points I made - and you seem to be mostly repeating your points. But who knows. I've presented a pretty sound case that there are two working definitions/usages of the adjectives "true" and "false" - and their noun equivalents. You seem to be suggesting that there is a third definition/usage, but so far I'm not seeing anything I can sink my [metaphor alert!] philosophical teeth into. But if you can present a clear and explicit definition and the context(s) under which your definition functions, I'll definitely check it out and try to respond.

I'll never understand the level of invective out here. I mean let's face it - we're all a bunch of eccentric cranks out here. Let's have some fun, but don't take it too seriously. — EricH

Exactly! And if we don't agree, who cares as long as it was a fun conversation right?

Suffering succotash! You seemingly just agreed with me above that the word "truth" identifies statements that are true. So I most definitely am not talking about "truth as a state of reality". To repeat, I am talking about the word "truth" as a property of sentences/propositions. — EricH

Yes, truth is used slightly differently depending on the context, but at its base, is what I noted 'true'? If true refers to the property of sentences and propositions, isn't a true sentence "what is" while a false sentence is "what is not"?

For example,

a. A bachelor is an unmarried man.
b. Mark is unmarried.
c. Mark is a man
Therefore Mark is a bachelor.

In each case we say the premises are true, so the conclusion is true. In the context of this true at its base still means, "What is". The premises are what is, and the conclusion is 'what is'. If B were false, so if "Mark is unmarried = false = 'what is not' then the conclusion would also be false or 'what is not'

Context is always considered, but at its core, there's an underlying base to words that we should find. My challenge for you is to see if you can come up with a context of truth that doesn't contain 'what is' at its base, and a context of falsity that doesn't contain at its base 'what is not'.

Per your request, I've removed any reference to knowledge and belief from this point. What do you think?

We're just repeating ourselves here. I've given you 2 clear definitions and use cases of the words "true" & "false". You seemingly acknowledge what I'm saying then you go back and repeat your previous talking points.

So to repeat myself: "What is" is not true. "What is" is not truth. "What is" is not "the Truth". Etc. "What is" simply is. It is our sentences describing "what is" that are true or false.

If true refers to the property of sentences and propositions, isn't a true sentence "what is" while a false sentence is "what is not"? — Philosophim

Again - no! You keep equating our sentences with "what is". True sentences describe "what is" - they are not equivalent to "what is".

My challenge for you is to see if you can come up with a context of truth that doesn't contain 'what is' at its base, — Philosophim

Notice that you used the word "contain" - this is yet another poetic metaphor. A true sentence does not contain "what is" - it describes "what is".

Anyway, I'll give you the last word.

So to repeat myself: "What is" is not true. "What is" is not truth. "What is" is not "the Truth". Etc. "What is" simply is. — EricH

And I don't think we disagree on this, I'm just trying to add the wrinkle of context in here. If I say, "Mark is an unmarried man" then say, "Its true", its true for that logical preposition. There may be no Mark I'm referencing at all besides the abstract concept.

Again - no! You keep equating our sentences with "what is". True sentences describe "what is" - they are not equivalent to "what is". — EricH

I agree with this depending on the context. In some contexts we are equating our sentence as 'what is' like in the logic preposition I mentioned above. But this is really out of my major point which is that truth in any context still contains 'what is' at its base. The subject of what is, be the sentence itself or what the sentence is describing, is based on context.

I really don't think we're all that off from one another. No need to agree or disagree if you feel the discussion has reached its end, those are just my thoughts on the subject.