Jump to content
Science Forums

Exactly what is “Truth”?


Doctordick

Recommended Posts

Are you saying that the universe is in fact just a list of real objects and in being just a list of object there exists a consistent system that they must follow and that this can be the only true reality. This list of real objects is the list in are left hand and that the list in are right hand is just a list of objects that we use to form are reality.

Then what science and most people are doing is studying the rules that the objects in are right hand follow while what we should be doing is studying the rules the objects on the list in are left hand must follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'This leads me to the rather strange definition that the truth is exactly what you believe to be true. I am fairly confident that the definition fulfills all usage common to any philosophical discussion. I would challenge anyone to prove that what he believes to be true is not true. The issue is, once he has proved something he believed to be true is not true, does he still think it is true? '

 

I am not convinced, most people are malleable - the truth fluctuates and the mind knows this, this malleability is what is not definable. Your final sentence is a get out - it's that wave between believing something is true and believing something else and then agreeing that it is true that I think you are after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is what all the facts prove. If we are talking about observable reality, then truth is what all the set of observable facts prove. If we are talking about an abstract form of logic, then truth is what all the facts of that abstract system prove. The trouble is that we don't always have available all the facts. But if that set of facts is consistent then it should be sufficient that truth is what any one of those facts prove. And it should be noted that any fact does prove itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Was reading some old posts and noticed this assertion and thought it needed a response.

Logic, however, can only analyse "truth" in the mathematical sense; it isn't enough to determine what is true or false about reality.
Ah but that is clearly an opinion. Something I challenge you to defend logically.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is truth.

If the line of truth is crossed then it is no longer truth. Our society says truth is relative "If it is good for you then so be it". Hope know one tells that to a murderer. If truth is relative then what if my truth says your truth is wrong, is your truth right or wrong? But then one truth is wrong so its no longer truth. This leaves the the question what is absolute truth? I say this because this is where science is today, undecided on truth. Uncovering a conclusion through a theory and trying to get all the facts to support that single conclusion.

Creationists and evolution alike. They have their ideas and they twist the facts to fit their conclusion. Wake world they are both theories. None has been proven and both take faith and i challenge someone to prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lawcat is on the right track. He recognizes that, being human, the best we can hope for is an assertion, but says the assertion must be supported by the evidence.

 

Isn't that pretty much the scientific method? And if the truth were something we could nail down, wouldn't the need for the scientific method and scientific study be gone? Aren't we looking for the truth, and in doing so assuming that there is a lot of new truth out somewhere beyond us, truth that's better than what we have now, truth closer to the absolute truth? And would not that absolute truth be an assertion that is supported by all the evidence ever collected in the history of our quest for knowledge?

 

At least, Lawcat's definition is better than any I could have come up with.

 

--lemit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest a modification, Truth = Recognition of Reality.

I think that Rade is close to the correct answer. Physical reality is neither true nor false, it just is. It is statements about physical reality that are either true or false. Hence the extent to which they are true depends on how well they describe reality. This description of truth allows for personal or shared truths to be true, in their context, even though they may not be absolutely true, but leaves out the question of how (or even whether) we know the statements to be true.

 

However, I suggest that there is another group of entities that can be true: abstract relationships like 2 + 2 = 4. On the one hand, these may be considered true by definition, because we define the symbols "2" and "4" and the relationship "2 + 2 = 4" to be true. But in binary, 10 + 10 = 100 expresses the same truth. Admittedly, that is just another human construct, but the fact that humans can construct different expressions for the same truth suggests, to me, that there is an underlying truth that both are descriptions of. If so, where do such truths come from, and what makes them true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth: an assertion consistent with evidence.
Let us consider your statement compared to what I posted as a modification to the definition given by "Reason", and that of OP (#1 post) of DoctorDick.

 

(1) Truth: Exactly what you believe to be true (OP definition of DoctorDick)

(2) Truth: An assertion consistent with evidence (Lawcat)

(3) Truth: Recognition of reality

 

Seems to me that any "consistent assertion" would be a rational "recognition" of something that has potential for error (that is, there is always a degree of uncertainty in any claim of truth), so I find no problem here.

 

What I do not like about the (1) definition is that it uses the word truth to define truth, plus uses the term believe to define, which by definition is outside of science, since science = to know (from the Latin scire), and when you know something scientifically you have 0% believe, yet your knowledge always has a degree of uncertainty.

 

The term "evidence" in (2) suggests the question--evidence of what ? Consider the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" on origin of life on earth. Could this not be viewed as an assertion consistent with evidence found in bible (I do think that is the claim made) ? -- yet is it truth ? For this reason I lean toward the third definition of truth (#3).

 

Or, perhaps a mix of the two (4) ?

 

(4) Truth: A consistent assertion of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If truth is reality, then what is opposite of truth? what is falsity? imagination? unreality?

 

Everything is reality. If truth is reality, then everything is truth. And that can not be, for there are lies, falsities.

 

Truth is a statement consistent with evidence. That such evidence exists within reality is of no moment. Everything exists in reality.

 

Now, I said assertion to expand the statement. "Statement" is more narrow. ASsertion includes bodily language.

 

Nontheless, "truth" is a statement about reality. "Truth," the statement, indicates that the statement is consistent with evidence. The opposite of truth is falsity; a statement not consistent with evidence. Both are in reality, but one is consistent with evidence and the other is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If truth is reality, then what is opposite of truth? what is falsity? imagination? unreality? Everything is reality. If truth is reality, then everything is truth. And that can not be, for there are lies, falsities.

I agree.

 

Truth is a statement consistent with evidence.

I disagree. This suggests that if there is no evidence, then a truthful statement cannot be made. That is incorrect, in my opinion. The existence, or otherwise, of evidence merely determines whether we can know that something is true. It has no bearing on the truth of the statement.

 

Statements can be about physical reality or about beliefs. E.g.

1. The moon is made of green cheese.

2. I believe that statement 1 is true.

Statements 1 and 2 have different truth makers:

 

Statement 1 is only true if:

a) The moon is actually made of green cheese, or

:bump: It is made of a material that is known as "green cheese".

These are examples of a) absolute and :eek2: relative truths.

 

Statement 2 is true if I genuinely believe that the moon is made of green cheese, irrespective of whether statement 1 itself is true.

 

So the statement:

Nontheless, "truth" is a statement about reality.

is true, provided that your definition of reality includes both physical reality and beliefs. However the truth or otherwise of the statement is independent of whether there is evidence that allows us to know whether the statement is true.

 

There remains my question about what makes abstract relationships (like 2 + 2 = 4) true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...