Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

True is...

Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:40:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
From the opposite of false, through what you believe it to be, up to your feelings, then what you think.
A matter of opinion

No probably not. I'm thinking it must have heaps of levels but. With so many scenarios .
I'm starting to get angry thinking about it now. I don't want to play anymore.
Good game
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 5:42:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

I think it depends on context. In science, sure. If we're speaking from a cognitive perspective, that is, we want to examine what people mean by 'true', then probably not.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 5:48:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

Is that actually rejected by anyone? All debate seems to hinge around the definition of verification.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:03:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

In other words, something is true iff its truthmaker is so, and, here, the truthmaker of any statement is given a priori in the syntax of reality.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:04:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:03:26 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

In other words, something is true iff its truthmaker is so, and, here, the truthmaker of any statement is given a priori in the syntax of reality.

No, in fact my argument can't be reduced to your gibberish. Sorry about that.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:04:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:04:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:03:26 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

In other words, something is true iff its truthmaker is so, and, here, the truthmaker of any statement is given a priori in the syntax of reality.

No, in fact my argument can't be reduced to your gibberish. Sorry about that.

It's not reducible to gibberish because it already is gibberish c:
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:06:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:04:43 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:04:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:03:26 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

In other words, something is true iff its truthmaker is so, and, here, the truthmaker of any statement is given a priori in the syntax of reality.

No, in fact my argument can't be reduced to your gibberish. Sorry about that.

It's not reducible to gibberish because it already is gibberish c:

=c
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:12:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Ok, I have no idea what's going on.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:13:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 5:48:40 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

Is that actually rejected by anyone? All debate seems to hinge around the definition of verification.

Yeah, I mean, not everyone is a pragmatist/ accepts a pragmatist theory of truth.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 10:05:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I have no conscious recollection of how I leared the meaning of most of the words I use, but I don't suppose my parents did it using dictionary style definitions. Just as well, really, if they had to use Dylan's definition to teach a one-year old what 'true' means.

I don't think a definition of true is possible, at least not a definition in terms of simpler concepts. True or truth is 'foundational'. For very good practical reason our brains have evolved to appreciate the difference between things that are and things that are not - our brains don't always determine if X 'is' or 'is not' correctly, but we do intuit the difference between the two - it is the putting that intuition into words where we have difficulty.

However, I understand the word 'true' to refer to 'that which is ' and 'false' with 'that which is not'. What may be more of a personal quirk is that I do not think epistemological factors have any relevance to truth. I don't think it matters whether the truth of X is known, verifiable, provable or anything else. We have words for such cases, such as 'unknown' and 'unproven' but they describe our epistemological limitations - the truth of X is not changed by changes of opionion or the production of a proof.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 7:41:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

I might regret asking this, but what is a "supertautology" and how is it different from a regular old tautology?

Tautology: x is x
Supertautology: X is really, really, really X !!

I was just being silly with the above, but the initial question is genuine. :)
keithprosser
Posts: 1,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 9:56:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

I might regret asking this, but what is a "supertautology" and how is it different from a regular old tautology?

Everyone knows a supertautology is a tautolgy that can take a leap of logic over a tall building in a single bound.

Seriously, what DC is saying is that you must first think of truth as a concept somewhat resembing the 'mathematical set of all true things'. To avoid looking as if we are aping set theory, let's not say set, but simply say that truth is conceptually a list of all true things, and call that list L.

Saying X is true is to say that X is in our list of true things, L. But that adds no new information because obviously X must be in L, because by definition L is a list of all true things and X is a true thing.

So (in CMTU-speak) saying X is true (ie in the lst of all true things) only seems to extend the truth concept L to include X - the theoretical extension is 'supertautological' because X was already in L. Supertautological refers to the apparent extension of L by X i.e there is no actual - extension the appearance of one is because the extension is supertautological.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 2:29:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

True is that which can be demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the domain of the demonstration and subsequent replications.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 2:33:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 7:41:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Showing that inherent in the truth concept is X's inclusion in the truth concept. In other words, supertautologically extending the truth concept to encompass other aspects of reality.

I might regret asking this, but what is a "supertautology" and how is it different from a regular old tautology?

Tautology: x is x
Supertautology: X is really, really, really X !!

I was just being silly with the above, but the initial question is genuine. :)

Is it like Russel's paradox?
That the set of all things is included in the set of all things...I don't know.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 7:27:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 2:29:07 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

True is that which can be demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the domain of the demonstration and subsequent replications.

Which, I suppose, are some of said criteria.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 1:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think that a 'useful fiction' would pass that definition.
I don't think that 'demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the domain of the demonstration and subsequent replications.' are conditions of truth.

They are conditions by which we can justifiable suspect something is true, but if X is true it is true whether or not it is demonstrable, replicatable or usable. What people know does not define what is true - it only affects our knowledge of what is true.

I see it as an issue of 'ontology' v. 'epistemology', or in English about whether something being true v. how we can know something is true.

My position - 'truth' is irreducible. It can be paraphrased, but not defined because there are no simpler concepts it is built out of.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:43:44 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think that a 'useful fiction' would pass that definition.
I don't think that 'demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the domain of the demonstration and subsequent replications.' are conditions of truth.

They are conditions by which we can justifiable suspect something is true, but if X is true it is true whether or not it is demonstrable, replicatable or usable. What people know does not define what is true - it only affects our knowledge of what is true.

I see it as an issue of 'ontology' v. 'epistemology', or in English about whether something being true v. how we can know something is true.
I don't think the distinction is very sensible. We can never access the things how they are in themselves, so why should we romanticise something we can never have?

My position - 'truth' is irreducible. It can be paraphrased, but not defined because there are no simpler concepts it is built out of.

Then how do we tell whether something is true?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:02:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

True is... a matter of practicality.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:28:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:43:44 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think that a 'useful fiction' would pass that definition.

If that useful fiction is general relativity, I don't see the problem.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:29:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:02:09 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:19:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...what best meets our criteria of verification .

Thoughts?

True is... a matter of practicality.

In a sense, yes.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:13:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:00:18 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:43:44 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think that a 'useful fiction' would pass that definition.
I don't think that 'demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the domain of the demonstration and subsequent replications.' are conditions of truth.

They are conditions by which we can justifiable suspect something is true, but if X is true it is true whether or not it is demonstrable, replicatable or usable. What people know does not define what is true - it only affects our knowledge of what is true.

I see it as an issue of 'ontology' v. 'epistemology', or in English about whether something being true v. how we can know something is true.
I don't think the distinction is very sensible. We can never access the things how they are in themselves, so why should we romanticise something we can never have?

My position - 'truth' is irreducible. It can be paraphrased, but not defined because there are no simpler concepts it is built out of.

Then how do we tell whether something is true?

We can tell if something is true by - for example - proving it a mathematical theorem. I am not saying truth is always unknowable - my purely philosophical position is that something can be unproven, undemonstrated, replicated and so on and yet be true.

My example would be Fermat's Last Theorem pre- Wiles' proof. It was always true, but it was not known to be true. It was because FLT was suspected to be 'true' in the ontological sense that Wiles bothered to make it also 'epistemologically true'. The distinction between 'is true' and 'is known to be true' may or may not have great practical consequences - I'll have to think about that - but there clearly is a difference.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 8:13:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 5:13:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:00:18 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:43:44 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think that a 'useful fiction' would pass that definition.
I don't think that 'demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the domain of the demonstration and subsequent replications.' are conditions of truth.

They are conditions by which we can justifiable suspect something is true, but if X is true it is true whether or not it is demonstrable, replicatable or usable. What people know does not define what is true - it only affects our knowledge of what is true.

I see it as an issue of 'ontology' v. 'epistemology', or in English about whether something being true v. how we can know something is true.
I don't think the distinction is very sensible. We can never access the things how they are in themselves, so why should we romanticise something we can never have?

My position - 'truth' is irreducible. It can be paraphrased, but not defined because there are no simpler concepts it is built out of.

Then how do we tell whether something is true?

We can tell if something is true by - for example - proving it a mathematical theorem. I am not saying truth is always unknowable - my purely philosophical position is that something can be unproven, undemonstrated, replicated and so on and yet be true.

That greatly limits our knowledge though. I wouldn't know I have hands or at least I would like to see the mathematical proof of that.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:54:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 8:13:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
stuff

I don't think we really disagree.

I am acquainted with the arguments of hyper-sceptics such as 'monist idealists' and I see the sense in their arguments. For example, I too believe I have two hands, but it is just possible (with an absurdly low probability) that I an octopus having a dream.

So if one listens to hyper-sceptics then it is impossible to know anything and I suppose they are right - technically. But if nothing can be known that robs the word 'knowing' of any useful meaning and then comes the huge problem of where to draw the line.

(Note - we're talking about 'knowing' now, not 'truth' which is what we started with.)

The generally accepted notion is that knowing is 'justified true belief'. I think we can all agree that is a simple contradition in terms to 'know' something that isn't true (I think that is where my abstract notion of truth applies or thing get horribly curcular), so it all hinges on 'justification'. What is my justification for asserting I am not an octopus having a dream? I leave that open.

If we wany to leave dictionary writing to the Websters of this world, we might want to take completely different tack.

Our brains contain scraps of information, coded into neurons just like data in RAM chips. The information so encoded may be a) 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' wrt reality and b) have 'good' or 'bad' provenance. There is nothing we can do about a), but b) needs some more analysis because we have b1) our own subective assessent of its provenance and b2) an objective measure of its provenance. (We have no direct awareness of b2 - it may or may not be the same as b1).

if a) is 'inaccurate' then b1-2) are irrelevant so the right words are 'being wrong'.
if a) is 'accurate' then if b1 is 'with good provenance' then you will think you know it and be correct in thinking you know it.
if a) is 'accurate' then if b1 is 'without good provenance' then you will think you believe it but with some reservations!
if a) is either but b) is 'good provenance' you have faith.
if a) is 'accurate' and b1 'not good' and b2 is 'good' then you will think you know it and be right - you do know it, even if you are not quite sure.
if a) is 'accurate' and b1 is 'good' but b2 is 'bad' then you will think you know it and be right for the wrong reasons.

I think that is all the cases!