Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Enai de a lukal]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

Some posters here are so confused about the matter that they think vague comments like "language is a tool" somehow help to dispel this contradiction. This thread is their opportunity to make this view seem less laughable. Wish them luck.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

If there are no truths, then it is true that there are no truths. There should be only one more step. But how do you show that something follows from something else to those who stubbornly assert that it doesn't. Are you familiar with Lewis Carroll's paper in Mind on this issue?
What the Tortoise Said to Achilles

More recently, we have:
What Achilles Should Have Said to the Tortoise

Wish them luck.

I don't know how I feel about wishing another luck in an endeavor to abandon reason and rationality in favor of...well, whatever the reason for doing so it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nice OP, frubals. I agree, of course. However there is a tangential point I'd like to raise. While statements like "there are no truths", or "we can't be certain of anything", or "I don't believe anything" are indeed vacuous, they aren't necessarily self-defeating. It's often said that they are, but I don't think so, as long as you allow some wiggle-room and imagination (perhaps a lot of imagination). For example, I can imagine--or at the very least, I can entertain the possibility--of a universe where "there are no truths" is basically an accurate statement. Okay, maybe there's just the one truth ... that there are no (other) truths ... but if we allow that minor modification then it would be a valid statement and its implications (if we lived in such a universe) would be profound.

Or if we consider the example, "I'm not certain of anything", it's tempting to say that's self-defeating, but it isn't. It's possible to not be certain that the sky is blue, pizza is tasty .... etc. ... AND to not be certain that you aren't certain. Maybe you think you aren't certain, but you aren't sure of it. This is rather silly, of course, but I don't see that it's necessarily self-defeating.

Another example: it's often said that "God is all-powerful" is self-defeating (or at least has the potential to be self-defeating). Again, I can imagine a God who is really, really powerful ... as powerful as possible ... and it would be perfectly reasonable to call such a God "all-powerful" even if technically, he didn't have the power to move the immovable rock he previously created. I mean, that's still really, really powerful.

 

[Sunstone]

For example, I can imagine--or at the very least, I can entertain the possibility--of a universe where "there are no truths" is basically an accurate statement. Okay, maybe there's just the one truth ... that there are no (other) truths ... but if we allow that minor modification then it would be a valid statement and its implications (if we lived in such a universe) would be profound.

I feel this is an excellent moment to bring up yet another reason you should learn classical Chinese, Spinks. In classical Chinese, there is no precise equivalent of the English word "no". Instead, there are several words that denote various degrees of "no", ranging from the equivalent of "maybe no" through to "almost always no". But the Chinese lacked an absolute no. Therefore, the most they could have easily expressed is the concept "there are almost always no truths".

Or, at least my ex-wife, who could read and write ancient Chinese, once told me.

 

[Thana]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

Some posters here are so confused about the matter that they think vague comments like "language is a tool" somehow help to dispel this contradiction. This thread is their opportunity to make this view seem less laughable. Wish them luck.

Kind of a silly statement..
Never heard it before tbh.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Okay, maybe there's just the one truth ... that there are no (other) truths ...

The only rule is that there are no rules, eh?

Or if we consider the example, "I'm not certain of anything", it's tempting to say that's self-defeating, but it isn't.

The issue here is what the assertion is: an epistemic mental state predicate. It is true if and only if the speaker is unsure of it, but the speaker can be unsure of it as this pretty much defines such mental state predication. Contrast "I believe I always lie" with "I always lie". The former can be true and the later cannot be true because only one is your average joe proposition and one is again a mental state predicate (actually, that's not really the reason but there's no sense in invoking things like truthmakers when we don't need to).

It's possible to not be certain that the sky is blue, pizza is tasty .... etc. ... AND to not be certain that you aren't certain. Maybe you think you aren't certain, but you aren't sure of it. This is rather silly, of course, but I don't see that it's necessarily self-defeating.

But again, we can't treat epistemic modality the way we do normal propositions (and, depending on who you talk to, we can't treat them as truth-bearing at all). let's for the sake of argument imagine that Descartes was correct, and that the one thing we can know is that in order to doubt our own existence there must be that doubter that is doubting, which means that there must be an "I". Imagine further that someone doesn't accept this as true. They can truthfully say not only that s/he is uncertain whether anything exists but also that s/he is uncertain that even her conscious self exists. As we are granting that Descartes is correct for the sake of illustration, if s/he says "I don't exist" then what s/he has said is false.

So yes, it is entirely possible to truthfully state that one's epistemic state of mind is universally one of doubt, but it does not follow from this that the propositions believed not true are in fact not true.

Another example: it's often said that "God is all-powerful" is self-defeating (or at least has the potential to be self-defeating).

If god is all-powerful in this sense, then god is a logical paradox. Homer proved this to Flanders by asking if Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it.

 

[Skwim]

I feel this is an excellent moment to bring up yet another reason you should learn classical Chinese, Spinks. In classical Chinese, there is no precise equivalent of the English word "no"

OR

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In classical Chinese, there is no precise equivalent of the English word "no".

So if I go and am told "NO! I already said no. Don't you understand the meaning of the word no?" I can say "not that one", right?

I'm trying to think of another language like that. If memory serves Gaelic doesn't really have a word for "yes". The word for yes is the same word that affirms propositions like "the weather is nice". I'm not going to embarrass myself by trying to spell the Gaelic, but when you say that sentence in Gaelic the first word in is the same word used as the basic word for "yes".

I know logic is not a product of language, but I wonder how much the philosophy of logic(s) would differ if the founders of modern logic spoke a language like those of the active type were predication is completely different and transitivity isn't a feature of the language.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Are you familiar with Lewis Carroll's paper in Mind on this issue?
What the Tortoise Said to Achilles

Haven't read it since college, but its a classic. Will have to re-read it here since you mention it. And hadn't seen this-

More recently, we have:
What Achilles Should Have Said to the Tortoise

but had heard of it; I'll look it over as well. Thanks!

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

What is universally true?
- Jesus Christ is our lord & savior.
- Human life is sacred.
- There is a God / Allah / FSM.
- There is no God / Allah / FSM.
- Non-violence is right....violence is always wrong.
Truth is only true for those who believe it strongly. One guy's truth is another's abomination.
Ignoring structures like math, if universal truth even exists, it's inaccessible to us because we cannot verify it.
Is what I say true? Nah....just an opinion.

 

[Windwalker]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

It can be stated to say there there has yet to be demonstrated any truth that can be stated absolutely. So therefore, anyone claiming such and such as a fact, that how they perceive the truth of it is the only reality of the thing, are making a claim not supported evidence. Or you could just take a shortcut using language and say, no can say anything absolutely, despite that the language creates a performative contradiction. It's understood implicitly, not explicitly, unless someone just wishes to play a game with words.

Another factor to add to this, is that if we begin to approach topics approaching an absolute, such as God, or infinity, language and logic will naturally begin to break down as it unavoidably sets up contradiction. Language is based upon a dualistic view of reality, and if you move into the nondual, language using subject/object relationship with break apart. It's like the novel flatland. How do you describe three-dimensional objects in a two-dimensional language?

But to the point of another poster, I would say it this way, though we cannot logically define or talk about something beyond the scope of a dualistic perceptual reality, we can "rest" in it. We can rest in uncertainty. There is different sort of knowing that occurs, rather than trying to jamb everything into mental conceptual models of reality. So therefore Truth, transcends relative truths, though it is not a truth itself that is comprehended. It is not a dualistic object outside the subject, where even the word "it" can be used.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What is universally true?
- Jesus Christ is our lord & savior.
- Human life is sacred.
- There is a God / Allah / FSM.
- There is no God / Allah / FSM.
- Non-violence is right....violence is always wrong.
Truth is only true for those who believe it strongly. One guy's truth is another's abomination.
Ignoring structures like math, if universal truth even exists, it's inaccessible to us because we cannot verify it.
Is what I say true? Nah....just an opinion.

Yeah. 'Fact' simply means 'my opinion, of which I am really really certain and so are a bunch of other smart people!'

It doesn't, or shouldn't, mean 'true in God's opinion.'

There is no truth but my truth, and I am its prophet.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

It's only language. I don't think you should get too excited about it. Any time we look at a piece of language and think that we must either 1) agree with it or 2) disagree with it... we've become slaves to the language rather than free thinkers. So it seems to me.

Anyway, can you define 'fact' for me, in your own words, and then answer follow-up questions about your conception of facts?

For me, 'facts' appear to be 'truth claims which I and many other smart and educated people agree with.'

But other people seem to define facts as 'truth claims which God agrees with.'

What do you mean when you talk about 'facts'? You can list various of your definitions if you like.

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, I wouldn't consider having multiple or differing perceptions of what constitutes "reality", to be anti-realism. At worst, it simply contradicts your perception of reality, which those you see as "anti-realism" could attribute to a simple lack of contextual imagination on your part.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yeah. 'Fact' simply means 'my opinion, of which I am really really certain and so are a bunch of other smart people!'

It doesn't, or shouldn't, mean 'true in God's opinion.'

There is no truth but my truth, and I am its prophet.

So is any of this true, or not?

You do realize the implication here right? If you're correct about this, it follows that you're incorrect, and if you're incorrect, then you're just incorrect. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

BTW, I wouldn't consider having multiple or differing perceptions of what constitutes "reality", to be anti-realism.

Skepticism/disbelief in truth/facts is anti-realism about truth or facts, just like skepticism/disbelief in, say, moral truths, is moral anti-realism. Terminology my friend, terminology.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I will say this for anti-realism about truth; while it may be untenable, self-refuting, and opposed to common sense and reason, it is nevertheless in very old (if not good) company; it's the same position held by the Sophists, which good ole Plato raged against so much... And one thing that hasn't changed in 2000 years; its still mere sophism.

 

[Windwalker]

Skepticism/disbelief in truth/facts is anti-realism about truth or facts, just like skepticism/disbelief in, say, moral truths, is moral anti-realism. Terminology my friend, terminology.

You didn't address what I said in post 19, and that may have some relevance here. And no, skepticism or outright rejection of what some claim is "reality" is not anti-realism. It's just a matter of understanding reality on different terms. To me, I'm sure what you call reality, I might call an illusion.

 

[Willamena]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

So if they had just kept their mouth shut, they'd be right.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, they'd be better off at least.