Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Enai de a lukal]

If you want a serious dialogue with me, you'll have to be willing to open yourself up and answer my questions about your view of things.

Done and done. Of course, that cuts both ways; something you apparently like to (conveniently) ignore. I'll be waiting if you decide to respond, and (try to) defend your view. So far all you've done is tip-toe around the obvious problem with what you're trying to claim; evasion is not going to cut the mustard. (but let's also not forget that you invited me to create this thread to examine a view which I do not endorse, but you do; so trying to turn this into an examination of my views is doing a 180 on what you formerly agreed to. I'm ok to discuss my views, but that was NOT the stated purpose of this thread... Or could it be you're having second-thoughts about the prospect of defending the view that [it's true that] there are no truths? Imagine that!)

 

[Straw Dog]

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.

To guide what can be guided is not constant guiding.

Some guides may be more useful than others within a certain range of circumstances. Some guides may take a more scenic route in order to appreciate the highest quality of experience. The greatest liberty is the open, flexible mind creating new impressions of the real context and acting authentically without appeal to authority or artifice.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Done and done. Of course, that cuts both ways; something you apparently like to (conveniently) ignore. I'll be waiting if you decide to respond, and (try to) defend your view. So far all you've done is tip-toe around the obvious problem with what you're trying to claim; evasion is not going to cut the mustard. (but let's also not forget that you invited me to create this thread to examine a view which I do not endorse, but you do; so trying to turn this into an examination of my views is doing a 180 on what you formerly agreed to. I'm ok to discuss my views, but that was NOT the stated purpose of this thread... Or could it be you're having second-thoughts about the prospect of defending the view that [it's true that] there are no truths? Imagine that!)

None of what you say above is correct. I have it on good authority that 'correct' means 'congruent with external reality' and so it is obvious that all the stuff you've written above is incorrect.

Untrue. Non-factual. Objectively mistaken. Stuff like that.

Now, Mr. Truth-and-Facts-Exist... gainsay me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'll be waiting if you decide to respond, and (try to) defend your view. So far all you've done is tip-toe around the obvious problem with what you're trying to claim; evasion is not going to cut the mustard.

By the way, when it comes to irony, I consider you a true master. I'll never forget the time you claimed to be a well-behaved, civil debater. Every time you call another debater a 'moron,' I cackle. Sometimes I guffaw.

Same with the 'evasion' bit.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, given that you're here, by your own admission, to defend sophism, I don't know why I'm surprised at your evasiveness. But even that is instructive here.

By the way, what is 'sophism'? Can you define it in your own words?

My experience with the term has been that it's mostly used as a curse by those who are confused about language and truth, but if you can define it, I'll be happy to try and understand what you mean by it.

And of course, I have never claimed to want to defend sophism. You've just made that up.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You invited me to create a thread for you to defend and expand on your view (something like "there are no objective truths/fact/states-of-affairs/whatever"- we can't know for sure, because you always evade any requests that you clarify or defend it) as you clearly stated here (if you need to refresh your memory). I'll consider this a retraction of your last few posts suggesting the onus is on me to defend my views, and answer your questions regarding them, while you refuse to reply to questions I pose regarding the issue which prompted the creation of this very thread. Perhaps you've simply had a lapse of memory; it happens, don't worry.

Oh, and still waiting.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

By the way, what is 'sophism'? Can you define it in your own words?

My experience with the term has been that it's mostly used as a curse by those who are confused about language and truth, but if you can define it, I'll be happy to try and understand what you mean by it.

And of course, I have never claimed to want to defend sophism. You've just made that up.

Of course you've never explicitly said as much- especially since you are apparently unfamiliar with the term. You are, however, arguing (or trying to, anyways- you never quite make it) for the same view that the Sophists held, and which, somewhat unintentionally, served as an impetus for Plato's philosophical writing, and with it, arguably the beginning of our whole great, grand, intellectual tradition which continues to this day. So, like I said, while you may not be in good company (as the view is no less self-refuting and untenable than it was 2500 years ago), you are nevertheless in very old company.

But enough of this. You invited me to create this thread to "call you out" regarding your view that there are no truths or facts- presumably with the implication that you would actually respond, and try to defend this assertion. I guess I'm still (foolishly?) optimistic that this will still happen.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You invited me to create a thread for you to defend and expand on your view (something like "there are no objective truths/fact/states-of-affairs/whatever"- we can't know for sure, because you always evade any requests that you clarify or defend it) as you clearly stated here (if you need to refresh your memory). I'll consider this a retraction of your last few posts suggesting the onus is on me to defend my views, and answer your questions regarding them, while you refuse to reply to questions I pose regarding the issue which prompted the creation of this very thread. Perhaps you've simply had a lapse of memory; it happens, don't worry.

Oh, and still waiting.

Sorry but you've completely lost me now. The little 3-year-old kid next door likes to taunt me sometimes, so all of my taunt-resisting time is already taken.

Sorry.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lol, riiiiiight. :sarcastic

Of course, if there are no facts, then it cannot be a fact that there are no facts... In other words, then there are facts. Oopsies. Back to the drawing board with you.

Language is our tool, not our master. At least that's how it seems for me.

That's not a relevant reply.

Sure it is. And it's the same thing I told you last time: Don't let language jerk you around. There's chaos there.

Please explain or show how "language is a tool" helps you in any way here, rather than just baldly stating as much.

Start a new thread. Call me out. Let's see where we get to.

Do you not remember this exchange? Was I mistaken in thinking that what you meant by "start a new thread, call me out" you meant that if I started a new thread and called you out, you would respond and defend your view here, rather than derailing a different thread?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sigh... If you decide to stop playing games, let me know, but I give up. Invite me to create a thread for you to defend your nonsense and you want to play evasive games instead; I'm not going to waste any more time here until you show some sign you're willing to be serious, or act like an adult (or even something approximating seriousness/maturity).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you not remember this exchange? Was I mistaken in thinking that what you meant by "start a new thread, call me out" you meant that if I started a new thread and called you out, you would respond and defend your view here, rather than derailing a different thread?

I would be happy to 'defend my view', but I can only do that if you are willing to engage the debate. Are you ready to answer my questions about what you mean by 'correct' and 'fact'? How about discussing the nonsensical statement that 'If there are no facts, then it is a fact that there are no facts.'

Here's what I think about debate: There are people out there who seem very much confused to me. (I'm sorry, but you are one of them.) Yet invariably these people deny that they are confused.

So is there a test for confusion?

Well, I have one. I think that the signs of a confused debater are 1) a refusal to define his own terms in his own short simple words, 2) a refusal to paraphrase his positions, which is related to #1, 3) a refusal to answer questions about his belief in his own simple words, 4) insults against his debate partner and against his partner's questions.

In my universe, I'm afraid that you match up with these tests. And I'm tired of non-productive debates, so....

Really, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to explain why I'm feeling some indifference about engaging you right now.

But if you'll happily define your terms when asked, gladly paraphrase your positions when asked, answer direct questions about your beliefs, and stop the personal insults, I'll be happy to engage this issue with you.

Can I get some kind of little pledge, maybe?

 

[Curious George]

I would be happy to 'defend my view', but I can only do that if you are willing to engage the debate. Are you ready to answer my questions about what you mean by 'correct' and 'fact'? How about discussing the nonsensical statement that 'If there are no facts, then it is a fact that there are no facts.'

Here's what I think about debate: There are people out there who seem very much confused to me. (I'm sorry, but you are one of them.) Yet invariably these people deny that they are confused.

So is there a test for confusion?

Well, I have one. I think that the signs of a confused debater are 1) a refusal to define his own terms in his own short simple words, 2) a refusal to paraphrase his positions, which is related to #1, 3) a refusal to answer questions about his belief in his own simple words, 4) insults against his debate partner and against his partner's questions.

In my universe, I'm afraid that you match up with these tests. And I'm tired of non-productive debates, so....

Really, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to explain why I'm feeling some indifference about engaging you right now.

But if you'll happily define your terms when asked, gladly paraphrase your positions when asked, answer direct questions about your beliefs, and stop the personal insults, I'll be happy to engage this issue with you.

Can I get some kind of little pledge, maybe?

I am not sure if this is a misplaced one on one debate, but I also agree that the statement--there is no truth--is self defeating. I will be happy to answer any questions of yours, I rarely us ad hominem attacks, and I usually am pretty open. So, what is the question?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am not sure if this is a misplaced one on one debate, but I also agree that the statement--there is no truth--is self defeating. I will be happy to answer any questions of yours, I rarely us ad hominem attacks, and I usually am pretty open. So, what is the question?

Hi, George. Thanks for stepping in. I agree that you tend toward a debate style which is more, um... pleasing to me. So let's try.

I'm not sure what the question is. But to get us started, I'll disagree with you. I think There is no truth can be a perfectly good, non-contradictory statement.

Let's define 'truth' as "knowledge in a human's head which could not possibly be at variance with external reality. Even if God declared it to be at variance, still it could not be at variance. Even if space aliens proved that it was just one of their tricks to make us think a false thing, still our knowledge could not be at variance."

So here's my opinion: There is no truth.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing contradictory or self-defeating in that claim. Do you disagree?

 

[Curious George]

Hi, George. Thanks for stepping in. I agree that you tend toward a debate style which is more, um... pleasing to me. So let's try.

I'm not sure what the question is. But to get us started, I'll disagree with you. I think There is no truth can be a perfectly good, non-contradictory statement.

Let's define 'truth' as "knowledge in a human's head which could not possibly be at variance with external reality. Even if God declared it to be at variance, still it could not be at variance. Even if space aliens proved that it was just one of their tricks to make us think a false thing, still our knowledge could not be at variance."

So here's my opinion: There is no truth.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing contradictory or self-defeating in that claim. Do you disagree?

Yes, unfortunately I still disagree. it seems to me that "there is no truth" is knowledge inside a humans head. So, I then question whether this knowledge corresponds to reality in.such a way that no entity can cause this knowledge to be at variance. If an entity could not cause such a feat, then this would be a truth. If an entity could cause variance then it is not a truth. But at that point we could say that it is a truth that some entity was capable of changing that knowledge. so, either way there appears a truth, from my perspective.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I would be happy to 'defend my view', but I can only do that if you are willing to engage the debate. Are you ready to answer my questions about what you mean by 'correct' and 'fact'? How about discussing the nonsensical statement that 'If there are no facts, then it is a fact that there are no facts.'

Here's what I think about debate: There are people out there who seem very much confused to me. (I'm sorry, but you are one of them.) Yet invariably these people deny that they are confused.

So is there a test for confusion?

Well, I have one. I think that the signs of a confused debater are 1) a refusal to define his own terms in his own short simple words, 2) a refusal to paraphrase his positions, which is related to #1, 3) a refusal to answer questions about his belief in his own simple words, 4) insults against his debate partner and against his partner's questions.

In my universe, I'm afraid that you match up with these tests. And I'm tired of non-productive debates, so....

Really, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to explain why I'm feeling some indifference about engaging you right now.

I know you're not; you're now trying to save face after having been caught red-handed, playing games and avoiding doing precisely what you invited me to create this thread to do. In any case, I defined the terms you asked for, even though, as we both know, they were not ambiguous to begin with, and your request for clarification was just more evasiveness on your part- and as for 2, as we've covered, it was explicitly stated that this thread was for you to defend your view- it had nothing to do with mine. So, as I said, I'll be waiting if you decide to make good on your offer- although I can certainly understand the strategic decision to bow out; you would've been even farther ahead if you had done so before offering to defend a self-contradictory claim in the first place (so that you wouldn't have had this embarrassing episode, acting like a spoiled child who takes his ball and goes home when things don't go his way).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, unfortunately I still disagree.

It doesn't seem unfortunate to me. Disagreement happens all the time and spices our debate.

it seems to me that "there is no truth" is knowledge inside a humans head.

That statement confuses me. Knowledge? How do you define knowledge?

To me, knowledge means something like 'my vague, 51%-or-better tendency to side with some statement as reflecting exterior reality.'

It's pretty much synonymous with 'my personal psychological leaning toward some matter; my opinion.'

So referring to 'there is no truth' as knowledge seems a bit weird to me. You're welcome to expand on it. You're saying that every statement we make is knowledge?

So, I then question whether this knowledge corresponds to reality in.such a way that no entity can cause this knowledge to be at variance. If an entity could not cause such a feat, then this would be a truth. If an entity could cause variance then it is not a truth.

How could we ever know whether an entity can or can not cause our knowledge to be at variance? That doesn't seem possible to me, not unless we are a prophet of God.

But at that point we could say that it is a truth that some entity was capable of changing that knowledge. so, either way there appears a truth, from my perspective.

I really don't know what you mean by 'a truth.' We probably need to start over from scratch if you'd like to discuss this.

As a possible starting point, can you define 'a fact' for me, in your own words, and then allow me to ask follow-up question? That might help me understand your position.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't seem unfortunate to me. Disagreement happens all the time and spices our debate.



That statement confuses me. Knowledge? How do you define knowledge?

To me, knowledge means something like 'my vague, 51%-or-better tendency to side with some statement as reflecting exterior reality.'

It's pretty much synonymous with 'my personal psychological leaning toward some matter; my opinion.'

So referring to 'there is no truth' as knowledge seems a bit weird to me. You're welcome to expand on it. You're saying that every statement we make is knowledge?



How could we ever know whether an entity can or can not cause our knowledge to be at variance? That doesn't seem possible to me, not unless we are a prophet of God.



I really don't know what you mean by 'a truth.' We probably need to start over from scratch if you'd like to discuss this.

As a possible starting point, can you define 'a fact' for me, in your own words, and then allow me to ask follow-up question? That might help me understand your position.

Ok. I was using knowledge as "information about something"

Sure I will define fact (though I tried not to use it, it probably slipped in).

Fact-something which is objectively true.

If you don't like that one I would suggest a logically indisputable representation of reality.


we can use your definition of truth, but if you want me to define one I would say

Truth: a logically consistent representation of reality which a sentient perspective could hold.

 

[Curious George]

I understand that both my second definition of fact and my definition of truth make an assumption that is contrary to your point, by assuming the rules of logic as truth. The imposition of this would not be fair, so I am ok with trying to work with any definitions you want so I can understand you pov.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Here's a pretty straightforward and uncontroversial way of stating the definition of "truth" and "fact", and the relation between the two-

Fact: a configuration of reality- a state of affairs. Ex: Paris being the capital of France. 2+2 equalling 4. Adrian Peterson being the reigning MVP of the NFL. The color of grass being green.

Truth: a proposition which corresponds with a state of affairs or configuration of reality that obtains- in other words, a proposition which expresses a fact. Ex: "Paris is the capital of France", "2+2=4", "Adrian Peterson is the reigning MVP of the NFL", "grass is green", etc.

 

[Willamena]

I think There is no truth can be a perfectly good, non-contradictory statement.

Unless it's true.