Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

What is your Standard of Truth?

INTJ
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 11:37:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Select all that apply, to your Standard of Truth, for each question.
========================================================
|| Standards of Truth: Multiple Choice 1 of 3 ||
========================================================
A statement is true…
(a)…when what is communicated by it cannot be disproved.
(b)…because the statement is asserted.
(c)…when the statement is proclaimed in the [fill in a book] and the [filled in book] is correctly translated, and is properly understood to be metaphorical in the instances when it is intended to be metaphorical and properly understood to be literal in the instances when it is intended to be literal.
(d)…when the statement is sincerely believed.
(e)…when the predicate is a factual depiction of the subject.
========================================================
|| Standards of Truth: Multiple Choice 2 of 3 ||
========================================================
When I cannot tell whether a statement is true, as selected previously, the truth/falsity of the statement can be approximated by…
(a) …other supportive statements.
(b) …other relevant, unbiased, incapable of forgetting, verifiable facts.
(c) …whether it agrees or disagrees, in principle, with the [fill in a book]
========================================================
|| Standards of Truth: Multiple Choice 3 of 3 ||
========================================================
When a statement is not approximate-able…
(a)…then I cannot tell whether the statement is about real issue and it has no bearing on me as though I could.
(b)…if the statement is from the [fill in a book] then I accept the statement on faith, because faith is the method that God chose for us.
(c)…if the statement is from the [fill in a book] faith is not by assertion the "method that God chose for us"; faith is simply the "last card in the deck"—the last option to continue living life esteeming the statement given that nothing could be verified nor approximated.
========================================================
========================================================
Please, post your answers for 1, 2, and 3 and discuss.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 1:36:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A statement is true…
(e)…when the predicate is a factual depiction of the subject.
By definition.

When I cannot tell whether a statement is true, as selected previously, the truth/falsity of the statement can be approximated by…
(a) …other supportive statements.
(b) …other relevant, unbiased, incapable of forgetting, verifiable facts.
Though I think you put some of the adjectives on the wrong statement. Facts, by their nature of being facts, are necessarily true, so there's no need for the modifiers unbiased or verifiable. It's also irrelevant whether the facts could be forgotten.

Supportive statements on their own don't do anything, but if they are unbiased, they can be verified, and they are agreed upon by a vast majority of people who have investigated the issue, then they can be evaluated as likely to be true.

It's kind of useless to include "facts" as a basis for how to determine what is and what isn't a fact.

Occam's razor is also a useful tool for approximating truthfulness of claims.

When a statement is not approximate-able…
(a)…then I cannot tell whether the statement is about real issue and it has no bearing on me as though I could.
This is the closest to what I'd say, but rather than saying "I can't tell whether it's about a real issue," I'd just say "I don't take a position on it."

However, I don't think the god claim falls into this category. In its most evidenced form, the god claim is simply naturalism plus an extra claim. That extra claim doesn't explain the universe any better than naturalism does, and it's a more complex explanation. Theism that assumes a god that is interested in human affairs is even worse off, not just because it's a more specific claim, but also because evidence seems to counterindicate that.
INTJ
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 2:53:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thank you, omelet. Our answers are the same for 1 and 3. So, I want to clarify what I meant on the second question:
First, I agree that "unbiased" and "incapable of forgetting" are inessential dressings to "facts". What, I tried to emphasize with those dispensable terms were the inherent, unaffiliated, nature of facts, which have no incentives, nor capability of incentives. So, agreed; though it is true that facts are unbiased and incapable of bias, those are dispensable modifiers.
Now, what I meant by "verifiable facts" was more so "verifiable things." The circumstances of question two, is one where we cannot determine, directly, if the statement were, for instance, "Jenny was at the scene of the crime"; there were no cameras at the scene of the crime. And, we are left to approximate the statement by what we can verify—"Her debit card shows transactions at this and this time. She was on security cameras from the parking lot, through shopping, and to leaving through this time."
So, I wanted to distinguish answer (b) from answer (a) which seeks to approximate by "other supportive statements" and that's why I chose "verifiable facts," at that time. But, since that has redundancy I would change it to say "verifiable things."