How do you define "Truth"?

[Mithrandir]

It is common for me to see people talking past each other in discussions because they use different definitions of "truth", and they might not realize that many of these conflicts could not be resolved unless they were to meet at the ontological level.

At some point every individual will make an assumption about "truth". Below I will list a few common theories of "truth" and their criticisms. These definitions and criticisms will be short and in no way complete.

Which theory/ies do you identify with and how do you overcome the common criticisms against? Also, how do you think your chosen theory influences how you approach the more practical aspects of your thought and life?


Common Theories of Truth

Correspondence
Theory of Truth: Truth is the correspondence of what you know or say (mental image, ideas, etc.) to what is (real world).
Criticism: If our relation to truth is just a mental projection or copy of the real thing in our minds, and not the direct form or essence as it exists in reality, then we can never know whether or not those projections correspond to real objects and their actual likeness. We would have to trust without confirmation that as we strive for accuracy in all our faculties of perception and judgment (sensing, thinking, feeling, intuition, etc.), that we are getting closer to what is considered truth.

Pragmatism
Theory of Truth: Truth is what works for an individual or group, which is subjective and relative.
Criticism: There are already words for "what works" such as "effective" or "practical", so using the same definition for "truth" is linguistic confusion. Also, what is true is not always practical, and what is practical is not always true (such as a useful lie).

Empiricism
Theory of Truth: Truth is only what can be proved with our senses.
Criticism: Sensing is inherently subjective, and what we "sense" is not always what is "true" (false positives). This issue is generally considered "solved" by the rigidity and consistency of the scientific method. However, the very concept of empiricism is an a priori rationalistic ideology and therefore cannot be considered "true" by its own standards. In other words, there is no scientific method for proving that only the scientific method proves truth. Thus, accepting as "truth" an ideology that accepts nothing except what the scientific method proves is self-contradictory.

Rationalism
Theory of Truth: Truth is only what can be proved with reason.
Criticism: You cannot prove that "truth" is only what can be proved with reason. In other words, the theory of rationalism cannot be considered "true" by its own standard. Furthermore, there are "truths" that cannot be proved, such as the law of noncontradiction, which is presupposed in all proofs. You cannot prove it without first assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

Coherence
Theory of Truth: Truth is the consistency, oneness, or harmony among a set of ideas.
Criticism: This theory sets itself in contrast to Correspondence, but presupposes "truth" in the same way Correspondence does (that this theory of truth is itself "true" in terms of corresponding to the "real world"). The theory also allows for contradictory beliefs to be considered "true" when cohering to different sets, breaking the law of noncontradiction.

Universal Skepticism
Theory of Truth: No truth is knowable.
Criticism: The very declaration implies that "no truth is knowable" is true, which is self-contradictory. Even when altered to "truth can only be probable," the theory cannot be considered certain without then contradicting itself. And even then, if it is only probable that truth can only be probable, this proposition itself can only be probable, et cetera ad infinitum. The proposition never finishes. The skeptic cannot even declare "I don't know if truth is knowable" without contradiction, because it is itself a declaration of truth, implying that they know that they "don't know". Without truth, any and all knowledge is impossible.

Universal Subjectivism
Theory of Truth: All truth is subjective, and entirely dependent on the "knower".
Criticism: "All truth is subjective" is itself a declaration of objective truth about the "real world". However, if the subjectivist claimed only that the subjectivity of truth is a subjective truth, a personal opinion or feeling in their mind, then they would not be claiming that the theory was really (objectively) correct, and therefore could not disagree with any other theory. And if all conflicting theories are considered true, the word "truth" has no meaning because all definitions have been included.
See dialog of Socrates and Protagoras:

Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.

 

[computerhxr]

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Internal (belief), external (social belief), and universal (reality) truths.

 

[Grayman]

Very well put together....

I wonder how facts fit in relation to these concepts...

In some cases truth and facts are the same thing but in others instances they are different things.
?..unless I am just confusing myself...

 

[Teax]

Universal Skepticism + Descrates
Theory of Truth: No truth is knowable except your own (undefinable) existence and the fact that no other truth is knowable.
Criticism: useless

but on a good day I love universal-Coherence... which negates the criticism part "allows for contradictory beliefs" in the long run, but reflects reality only if reality is coherent in itself. at this point it's really more an argument of "more fun" than reason....

 

[EditorOne]

That was good.

Often when I see people talking past each other it's because they're not listening. Not so much different paradigms, contexts, or realities, just too much mouth and not enough ears.

 

[computerhxr]

That was good.

Often when I see people talking past each other it's because they're not listening. Not so much different paradigms, contexts, or realities, just too much mouth and not enough ears.

I agree with this 100%. It's not a discussion if no one is listening and everyone is talking. Hearing is not the same as listening.

 

[computerhxr]

Very well put together....

I wonder how facts fit in relation to these concepts...

In some cases truth and facts are the same thing but in others instances they are different things.
?..unless I am just confusing myself...

Facts exist regardless of the truth.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ― Socrates

Facts are for people who see the world in black and white. They need something to hang on to so that they can feel safe and secure.

 

[OrLevitate]

Pretty much always been a universal skeptic. agnostic agnostic. cuz it's the most true heh. but the inescapability of constantly defying complete agnosticism or universal skepticism leads to me to tentatively tend towards rationalism as you wrote it, which might be considered what makes universal skepticism possible as an outlook, except for the slightly differing definitions of truth. I see rationalism as using what we can to come with the most probabilistically accurate logical view, however untrue it may be in our unperceivable actuality. Maybe slightly more clear; what rationalism deems true I would deem approaching an unreachable asymptote of actual truth in which what is deemed truth by rationalism has to be assumed (since it's an unfalsifiable possibility) to be so far off in it's proximity to that asymptote that it's incoherent from a value of 0 in regards to truthiness.

Universally skeptical rationalist I suppose. as I get older I think I'll tend more and more towards your definition of rationalist because including the fact that it may all be bs gets more and more of a bother to remember, until the point where I just say fk it and accept the rationalist definition of truth as you wrote it, and then don't even remember I said fk it and think it's really true.

 

[Teax]

Facts exist regardless of the truth.

facts are defined that way, but how can we prove they actually exist?

or did your socrates quote imply that you too - gave up on that...

 

[computerhxr]

facts are defined that way, but how can we prove they actually exist?

or did your socrates quote imply that you too - gave up on that...

Yes, the quote implied that. You can't know that you don't know something. In the same way that you can't know that a fact is factual. Watch The Matrix again, just the first one.

Facts are supported by other facts, and those are supported by more facts. If one fact in the chain is fiction disguised as fact, then the whole fact pyramid tumbles down and you are left with a pile of facts. If you support you beliefs on facts, then you will fall down with the them unless you can let go of your convictions. A few will remain, floating at the top, figuring out a solution to save those who have been mislead by the facts. That is how I see it.

 

[Teax]

Facts are supported by other facts, and those are supported by more facts. If one fact in the chain is fiction disguised as fact, then the whole fact pyramid tumbles down and you are left with a pile of facts. If you support you beliefs on facts, then you will fall down with the them unless you can let go of your convictions. A few will remain, floating at the top, figuring out a solution to save those who have been mislead by the facts. That is how I see it.

just a query of definition: in your definition, a fact can also be the abstraction of other facts? otherwise I cannot explain this part. But if it is, then how do you explain that a fact, that is in mid-chain, could be fiction? it would be just an inference afterall, as believable as the previous fact?

maybe a lil example will clear it up. plz thx

(my definition of fact was like... "phenomenon" - something in by itself - not requiring support)

 

[computerhxr]

Yes, the quote implied that. You can't know that you don't know something. In the same way that you can't know that a fact is factual. Watch The Matrix again, just the first one.

Facts are supported by other facts, and those are supported by more facts. If one fact in the chain is fiction disguised as fact, then the whole fact pyramid tumbles down and you are left with a pile of facts. If you support you beliefs on facts, then you will fall down with the them unless you can let go of your convictions. A few will remain, floating at the top, figuring out a solution to save those who have been mislead by the facts. That is how I see it.

just a query of definition: in your definition, a fact can also be the abstraction of other facts? otherwise I cannot explain this part. But if it is, then how do you explain that a fact, that is in mid-chain, could be fiction? it would be just an inference afterall, as believable as the previous fact?

maybe a lil example will clear it up. plz thx

(my definition of fact was like... "phenomenon" - something in by itself - not requiring support)

I am glad to see that you're paying attention!

You should try to understand the idea behind the words, instead of looking so hard at the words themselves. Words are similar to facts, and they are loaded with emotional baggage. Words only have meaning because we give them meanings. Everyone has slightly different definitions and they mean different things to different people. You have a brain so that you can interpret meaning from the words that we use.

Words mean different things to different people, and it can change over time. Think of the word "offensive" for example. At some point, it was considered offensive to show legs and arms on TV. People find different things offensive, so words aren't even very precise in many cases. You can be intuitive by changing your perspective, and you can use what you feel to give your own meaning to the words. Just be prepared to let go of your belief and see what you think it means to them.

I could always paint a picture instead of writing words. That is what I was trying to do here. I'm painting a picture with words to help me express my ideas by forcing you to let words have other meanings. Otherwise you are letting other people define my words for you. Define them for yourself.

I want you to be critical and make your own decision on how you feel about "facts". Don't let me, or anyone else force you into a box. That type of thinking is what creates all of the violence and hatred in the world. People misinterpret things based on their own misinterpretations. It's dangerous and it's how we are taught to think. Words are like little judgments people apply to people and objects.

Just read it and interpret it how you want. It's good practice and I'm pretty sure that you already understand.

 

[Teax]

I was merely looking for an isomorphic structure to yours. your definitions tells me more about your world view than you think (and less about the thing it defines). which is similar to what you mean by "picture"... so I guess we couldn't disagree on anything afterall. (which is boring)

I hope someone comes along who thinks facts are knowable and is willing to explain why.

 

[Mithrandir]

Very well put together....

I wonder how facts fit in relation to these concepts...

In some cases truth and facts are the same thing but in others instances they are different things.
?..unless I am just confusing myself...

I think of "facts" as consensual placeholders for truth. For example, if every person with adequate eyesight can look up and see the moon in the night sky, then they will come to the consensus that the moon actually exists as a fact until proven otherwise. If this "fact" is then disproved, a new "fact" will take its place as a placeholder for truth. If a fact ever reaches the status of indisputable, then it would be said to match truth.

The criteria used for a fact to reach the status of indisputable would depend on one's theory of truth.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nice thread, and nice responses.

I reject both universal subjectivity and skepticism out of hand, as mentioned, they contradict themselves.

Coherence seems more a correlate of truth, but a pretty good one.

Rationalism seems sort of good and bad. IMO it's not actually a definition of truth, but more a category of truths that can be known. Things can be true without you proving them, this is necessary for there to be anything unknown in the first place!

Spoiler

[tangent]
Regarding the claim that facts can't be known (Uskepticism) - that depends on how the fact is phrased. Throw those bad boys down as a compound conditional and you get real truth, as it allows you to tentatively presuppose necessary conditions without actually assuming them. This includes that aforementioned law of non-contradiction. It's a limited form of truth, but it's all we gots
[/tangent]

Empiricism is... well again, I think it's less a truth than a correlation to the truth, and the guys doing it usually know this. In the OP it says that truth is only what we can prove with our senses, but that's not really how empiricism works is it? It's a system for arriving at conclusions that are probably true - any assertion that things not sensed are untrue is likely made in a manner of inference.

I'm right there with you on pragmatism. I'd go further and say it's a blatant perversion of what it purports to represent - but I'm a bit of a drama queen =)

Correspondence is nice, but doesn't really help link perception with truth much. They're still entirely divided conceptually and as such it feels like this line of thought can't stand alone. I think I bounce between rationalism, empiricism and correspondence, plus coherence in purely exploratory undertakings.

 

[Cognisant]

Any question of the validity of empiricism is just fucking stupid.

Sure out sense are subjective but that's why there's so much testing and double checking and cross referencing and frankly scientific "truth" is limited to what we know and we don't know how much we don't know so there's no telling what theories are absolutely right or wrong but it's the best we can do.

I don't care what your jacked up brain experienced when you got high or what spiritual insights you may have had while chanting your mantra in a sensory deprivation tank because the truth is if you think you're learning anything from that you're a fucking idiot.

 

[computerhxr]

Spoiler

[tangent]
Regarding the claim that facts can't be known (Uskepticism) - that depends on how the fact is phrased. Throw those bad boys down as a compound conditional and you get real truth, as it allows you to tentatively presuppose necessary conditions without actually assuming them. This includes that aforementioned law of non-contradiction. It's a limited form of truth, but it's all we gots
[/tangent]

Things can be logical and non-factual. You can not assume logic derives fact. It may only be true in one dimension.

There is no reason that it can not be known. Just that we can not know if we know. We can never be sure because another condition may exist that would destroy the logic. Many things that we call facts may actually be facts, but who can say for sure?

The law of non-contradiction may only work logically in our dimension. It is a good tool for describing reality and narrowing it down to something that is close enough to being factual that we can call it a fact.

Just use the law of non-contradiction and include "The Matrix" as a premise. The law is not flawed, but it does have limited application.

Am I wrong? Or is this what you meant by "limited form of truth"? I was not entirely clear on that. If it's a limited form of truth, then how can it be fact?

I assumed that you were saying that the fact would only describe a limited part of reality. Like "I think therefore I am" for example. I agree and disagree with that statement. Existence is not necessarily limited to thinking beings. But thinking does imply existence. Is it a fact? I dunno, maybe...? I would throw in people with split personalities who can have two separate existences, or to go further and assume that subconscious thought is another separate existence?

We could use the term, quasi-factual in place of fact and I would agree. We can quasi-know about quasi-facts to be quasi-true. For the sake of argument, we should assume that facts are the strongest logical arguments to describe reality (both physical, and meta-physical reality).

I personally subscribe to authority. Not self assigned authority, like the government. People that have many opinions that I agree with, I will make them the authority on the subject and use them to guide my understanding. I will many times take their word as "fact" to suite my needs. And I'm using the term "fact" loosely based on how I've described it. Facts should not be blindly accepted, and they should be continually tested until we have better facts to replace them.

Mithrandir said it best...

I think of "facts" as consensual placeholders for truth. For example, if every person with adequate eyesight can look up and see the moon in the night sky, then they will come to the consensus that the moon actually exists as a fact until proven otherwise. If this "fact" is then disproved, a new "fact" will take its place as a placeholder for truth. If a fact ever reaches the status of indisputable, then it would be said to match truth.

The criteria used for a fact to reach the status of indisputable would depend on one's theory of truth.

 

[Hadoblado]

You can have the context defined by the conditional, so if...

1) the matrix isn't real
+
2) the words I mean to phrase this sentence mean exactly what I think them to mean
+
3) logic is in fact truth preserving
+
4) A and B = C
+
5) A
+
6) B
+
7) If two statements are true then the conjunction of these statements is true


then...

Conclusion: C

If you have facts then you can determine other facts using logic, but since you need facts in the first place you can just assume facts and determine the outcome. Rather than a 'truth' (as in known reality), you have a model of truth - but you can still determine what is possible, impossible, and certain (to a limited degree). Every time there is something that can interrupt the truth preserving nature of your chain of logic, you rephrase it with an extra layer of condition.

 

[computerhxr]

You can have the context defined by the conditional, so if...

1) the matrix isn't real
+
2) the words I mean to phrase this sentence mean exactly what I think them to mean
+
3) logic is in fact truth preserving
+
4) A and B = C
+
5) A
+
6) B
+
7) If two statements are true then the conjunction of these statements is true


then...

Conclusion: C

If you have facts then you can determine other facts using logic, but since you need facts in the first place you can just assume facts and determine the outcome. Rather than a 'truth' (as in known reality), you have a model of truth - but you can still determine what is possible, impossible, and certain (to a limited degree). Every time there is something that can interrupt the truth preserving nature of your chain of logic, you rephrase it with an extra layer of condition.

First... I'm not sure what A, B, or C are referring to in your statement. I'm assuming they are 1, 2, and 3.

There are infinite alternatives to the matrix that you would also have to exclude to make this argument work. The matrix is not the only concept that could break the logic. And if you have to give them a context, then the "truth" that you describe is not true or absolute. It's the same thing as saying facts are best models to describe reality, which is the argument we were making in the first place. Calling them facts, truths, or anything else does not change anything.

What you are describing is the same as what I originally said:
"Internal (belief), external (social belief), and universal (reality) truths."

You created a social belief. It is only true to those who believe your premise, and agree to the context.

To illustrate my point:

1.) Everything that I say is true and factual.
2.) I am a robot.
Since everything that I say is true and factual, and I said that I am a robot, then I must be a robot.

Is it true? Yes (in context).
Is it factual? Nope.... errrrr..... BEEP!
Does it imply that I know a fact or truth without any doubt? No, there are many alternative premises that could destroy my argument.

Such as:
0.) Nothing that I say is true or factual.
1.) Everything that I say is true and factual.
2.) I am a robot.
Since everything that I say is true and factual, and I said that I am a robot, then I must be a robot. Both statements are true and not true, factual and nonfactual. Since nothing that I say is true and factual, and everything that I say is true and factual, then this is not a paradox.

This is not to say that the logic isn't useful, or that facts in context aren't useful. You are just twisting the meaning of fact to fit your context.

 

[Hadoblado]

Sorry, I'm having difficulty focusing, and greater difficulty communicating.

It's not about believing the premises, it's about knowing that *if* the premises are true, then these other things are true, so long as those premises are in some way a base input and a way of computing them (the means of computation is usually the logical system and anything else that is ordinarily assumed).

Essentially I'm circumventing the need to justify assumptions required for 'truth', by using them in a hypothetical valid conditional and making at least one of the premises self-referencing. I don't know for a fact any single thing about the universe, but I do know that if given these particular things about the universe, I will know this other stuff too.

 

[Cherry Cola]

truth isn't anything in itself (as illustrated by the liar paradox). the only things which are definite truths are qualia or things which exist in closed systems

the correspondence and the subjectivist views on truth are retarded continuations of cartesian dualism in disguise, objective and subjective, mental and physical, same shit different names

the irony is great in that there are theories of truth which presupposes this metaphysical gap for which there is no proof

 

[Mithrandir]

the correspondence and the subjectivist views on truth are retarded continuations of cartesian dualism in disguise, objective and subjective, mental and physical, same shit different names

the irony is great in that there are theories of truth which presupposes this metaphysical gap for which there is no proof

If the mind and body don't coexist, which is truth? Are we bodies that project minds or minds that project bodies? What is the proof for your conclusion?

 

[computerhxr]

Sorry, I'm having difficulty focusing, and greater difficulty communicating.

It's not about believing the premises, it's about knowing that *if* the premises are true, then these other things are true, so long as those premises are in some way a base input and a way of computing them (the means of computation is usually the logical system and anything else that is ordinarily assumed).

Essentially I'm circumventing the need to justify assumptions required for 'truth', by using them in a hypothetical valid conditional and making at least one of the premises self-referencing. I don't know for a fact any single thing about the universe, but I do know that if given these particular things about the universe, I will know this other stuff too.

No worries. I think that I understood what you were trying to say, but I just don't see how that's any different than what was already being said. If you have to change the logic to fit the idea, then that isn't knowledge of a fact. Instead of changing the model, just call it a fact and assume that everyone is judging using the same rules.

I guess the point of the argument is to illustrate that facts are already based on the same logic that you're using, which is the fundamental flaw in facts. They sound absolute, so people assume that they are true and never challenge them critically. You don't need to devise a system to make something appear to be factual for the sake of an argument. Facts already do that just by having enough believers to support it. That is no different than using a bible as a premise to say that every word in the book is factual and true. Yes, you can make it a premise and call them facts, and use it to break down the theory of evolution. The point is that it's equally as bad on both sides.

Facts are meant to be tools, and not the all deciding rules to the universe. They are just one factor that you can use to help you make better decisions. By your explanation, you say that you can change the meaning to fit the facts. That suggests that you're opinions on facts can change which is the point of the argument. So I'm just going to change the premise to make it a fact so that I can assume that we totally agree.

 

[Mithrandir]

Ran across these interesting passages about truth in Francis Bacon's Essays:

"The inquiry of truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it; the knowledge of truth, which is the praise of it; and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human natures ."

"...no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene), and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests, in the vale below; so always that this prospect be with pity, and not with swelling, or pride."

Bacon, Francis. The Essays of Francis Bacon (p. 2).


To him, it seems that the inquiry and belief of truth is the fundamental prerogative and good of human nature. Thoughts?

 

[k9b4]

I usually mean the first one - correspondence.

I say an idea is true if the idea matches relatively well with reality. Of course, no idea can be exactly true.

 

[marv]

Truth is a statement that is true. A statement is true if it describes a particular subset of reality at a particular level of abstraction with full consistency. A statement is a form of information, so the agents communicating this information further implicitly need to be defined, which is harder. (should be close)

 

[Words]

Universal Skepticism
Theory of Truth: No truth is knowable.
Criticism: The very declaration implies that "no truth is knowable" is true, which is self-contradictory. Even when altered to "truth can only be probable," the theory cannot be considered certain without then contradicting itself. And even then, if it is only probable that truth can only be probable, this proposition itself can only be probable, et cetera ad infinitum. The proposition never finishes. The skeptic cannot even declare "I don't know if truth is knowable" without contradiction, because it is itself a declaration of truth, implying that they know that they "don't know". Without truth, any and all knowledge is impossible.

All of the written criticism for each philosophy is actually a deference to Coherence or Rationalism(I can't quite distinguish the two.) . Because they all use logic to criticize. But this particular criticism interests me most because this is my primary epistemology. It's easy enough to defend by stating that logic itself is unknowable to be true, similar to the criticism against Coherence. Contradictions mean nothing to what is true which is that truth(absolute that is) is impossible. It kinda feels weird saying that because all of philosophy fundamentally depends on the axiom of logic...human logic. (Which is empirically a product of evolution blah blah humans are limited. We, as humans, 'organize' reality for the purpose of surivival. Mathematics is a human internal construct.)

Which theory/ies do you identify with and how do you overcome the common criticisms against? Also, how do you think your chosen theory influences how you approach the more practical aspects of your thought and life?

My position is pretty chaotic i find. It is everything here (except correspondence and maybe universal subjectivism which i think are the weakest) organized in a particular way.

First, absolute truth is impossible so "U.Skep." Second, I go with Pragmatism and something like U.Subjectivism and logic to state a "belief" not a truth. I believe I care about X therefore i have to search for practical truths or assumptions. And then to search for that, i apply the coherence of rationalism, pragmatism, and empiricism...which i guess is pretty much 'science.'

 

[Brontosaurie]

truth is that which most efficiently conflates the dimensions of ego, time and fact

 

[Vrecknidj]

Back in the early 90s, I had a student in one of my classes (Foundation of the Modern Worldview, I think), raise his hand. He sat in the back, only occasionally spoke (and it was usually insightful), and had been listening to others argue for a couple of minutes.

I called on him.

He asked, in all sincerity "What is it with you guys and your need to be right?"

He was a music major. A bright guy -- he ended up with an A. But, he saw things through different lenses than many of the other students did.

Good question.

 

[RandomGeneratedName]

Truth is subjective... if you let it be....

 

[Shieru]

This is a thought-provoking thread, however it seems paradoxical. The problem I see with trying to define truth in an epistemological way is that knowledge can only ever be a subjective copy of reality, while truth is that which literally exists regardless of what human knowledge may be.

 

[Seteleechete]

I refuse to make a statement of what truth is, since I do not know which version of truth is true. This is not universal skepticism, I'm not saying it is impossible to discern truth only that I do not know what "truth" is.


Also I don't care what the actual truth is only my subjective version of it which is malleable based on what I know. My subjective truth may be false or true but I will assume it is false and act(including thinking/analyzing/debating) as if it is true until new stimuli changes my subjective truth.


I could call this rejection of truth. "I cannot tell what truth is, since I do not know what true truth is."