Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Enai de a lukal]

Exactly. And if "there are no truths" is false, then there are truths. Rock+hard place.

 

[Curious George]

Exactly. And if "there are no truths" is false, then there are truths. Rock+hard place.

I think, if I understand him correctly, he is going for truth ultimately reflects our beliefs on which me must rely on induction to create a framework in order to establish truth. Therefore our concept of what truth is is fallible, even though we might have a strong argument there is a weak weak spot. So he is using the statement there are no truths not as an absolute truth but as an inductive truth. I think this argument still fails because even though he is not asserting it as an absolute truth, ultimately it is true or not. Or he is embracing some form of paraconsistent logic wherein he is acknowledging varied truths, but rejecting any notion of an absolute truth. I would think that such a systems framework would either be absolutely true or not, but I am not sure, and am hoping to find out.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think, if I understand him correctly, he is going for truth ultimately reflects our beliefs on which me must rely on induction to create a framework in order to establish truth. Therefore our concept of what truth is is fallible, even though we might have a strong argument there is a weak weak spot.

Even though its pretty silly that we still have to guess what his views are, especially since he asked me to create this thread so that, presumably, he could expand on and defend them- but yes, I agree; this is more or less what I've gathered he has in mind.

So he is using the statement there are no truths not as an absolute truth but as an inductive truth.

Right, and what he's claiming about truths generally still applies to his own statement- that its uncertain and subject to error; which of course, undermines his own claim to the exact same extent as it undermines any other sort of truth (in other words, the more successful we take his case to be, the more it undermines itself).

Or he is embracing some form of paraconsistent logic wherein he is acknowledging varied truths

Now I think you're just giving him too much credit.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

I read a whole book one time about 'information'. I guess it was a 50,000-word definition of the term... as the Bible is perhaps a massive definition of 'God.' The book pretty much defined information as 'startling or unexpected knowledge.' In other words, the more unexpected the incoming data, the more information it contained.

Anyway, I don't know what 'information' means to you in the sentence above. I myself can't think of knowledge and information as synonymous, but I'll try my best to keep your conception in mind.

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

Fact-something which is objectively true.

OK. And do you believe that humans are capable of knowing objective truth? If I say a thing is a fact and you say it's a non-fact, is there a way to determine which of us has the fact?

If 99.5% of all humans claim that Jesus walked on the earth, died and rose to heaven -- but you disagree -- is it a fact or a non-fact?

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

You and I may see the world differently. I'm not here to contend with you over the meaning of words. I'm here to listen to your word usage and see if it seems integrated to me. I don't want you to provide me with pleasing definitions. I want to know how you are using your words.

As for 'a logically indisputable representation of reality', are you saying that the only truth is physical stuff? And that you are willing to discount the 2% of geniuses who disagree with your logic? You will insist that the other guy doesn't have the truth but that you do?

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

OK. The religionists will say that truth is the understanding we get when the Holy Spirit indwells within us. Do you deny that they have truth and insist that you do have it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unless it's true.

Oh, no. 'Truth' and 'true' are different words. Not only that, but they both require us to believe in magic, and I can't do that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Exactly. And if "there are no truths" is false, then there are truths. Rock+hard place.

That construction makes no sense to me. Let's try a parallel sentence:

If there are no unicorns, then there are unicorns.
If there are no truths, then there are truths.

So you are claiming that those two sentences seem right and reasonable to you??

If not, why does one seem right and the other seem wrong?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think, if I understand him correctly, he is going for truth ultimately reflects our beliefs on which me must rely on induction to create a framework in order to establish truth. Therefore our concept of what truth is is fallible, even though we might have a strong argument there is a weak weak spot. So he is using the statement there are no truths not as an absolute truth but as an inductive truth.

What is an absolute truth?

How about an absolute moral truth... do you believe in them?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That construction makes no sense to me. Let's try a parallel sentence:

If there are no unicorns, then there are unicorns.
If there are no truths, then there are truths.

So you are claiming that those two sentences seem right and reasonable to you??

If not, why does one seem right and the other seem wrong?

No. The first is patent nonsense. The second is quite right- if there are no truths, then it follows that "there are no truths" is true; but if "there are no truths" is true, then there is at least one truth, namely, "there are no truths"- but then there is a truth, and "there are no truths" is false. But, if "there are no truths" is false, then there are truths. Like I said, rock+hard place.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No. The first is patent nonsense. The second is quite right- if there are no truths, then it follows that "there are no truths" is true; but if "there are no truths" is true, then there is at least one truth, namely, "there are no truths"- but then there is a truth, and "there are no truths" is false. But, if "there are no truths" is false, then there are truths. Like I said, rock+hard place.

Wow. Yeah, I can see how a word-believer would feel himself between a rock and a hard place. Thank goodness I don't worship words myself.

So anyway, you're saying that the following claim is true:

If there are truths, then there are truths, and if there are no truths, then there are truths.

Interesting, yes? Do you see how in your conception, truths must necessarily exist?

You can't get outside of that view, I think, in the same way as a Biblical literalist cannot get outside of his view of the Bible as holy.

The Bible is holy. There are truths. Two statements of faith.

Everyone fears ambiguity. I wish it weren't so.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wow. Yeah, I can see how a word-believer would feel himself between a rock and a hard place. Thank goodness I don't worship words myself.

Not realizing you're between a rock and a hard place doesn't mean that you aren't. And, amusingly enough, you're apparently the only one yet to realize your predicament.

So anyway, you're saying that the following claim is true:

If there are truths, then there are truths, and if there are no truths, then there are truths.

Yep. Care to refute it?

Interesting, yes? Do you see how in your conception, truths must necessarily exist?

Sure. Care to refute that view? Needless to say, this-

You can't get outside of that view, I think, in the same way as a Biblical literalist cannot get outside of his view of the Bible as holy.

The Bible is holy. There are truths. Two statements of faith.

Everyone fears ambiguity. I wish it weren't so.

is not a refutation, but more evasion, empty rhetoric, and ad hominem; merely stating that realism about truth is supposed to be somehow comparable to religious fundamentalism is not a valid counter-argument (even if the comparison was apt, it wouldn't work as a refutation) no more than vague comments accusing people of "fearing ambiguity". Try again, my friend. I'll be patiently awaiting your (on-topic) response.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If 99.5% of all humans claim that Jesus walked on the earth, died and rose to heaven -- but you disagree -- is it a fact or a non-fact?

It seems like you may be conflating two different things: 'X' being a fact, vs. people believing that 'X' is a fact. In this example, 99.5% of humans believe 'X' is a fact. Curious George believes that 'X' is NOT a fact. However, both parties most likely will grant, based on a priori principles about what "reality" is, that 'X' either is, or is not, a fact, and therefore both sides cannot be right. I think enaidealukal and Curious George are simply saying that such facts exist, but they are not saying that it is an easy or simple task to discover the facts, be certain that you understand them correctly, and get everyone to agree. All that work is still ahead of us even after we accept enaidealukal and Curious George's premise (if I understand them correctly).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not realizing you're between a rock and a hard place doesn't mean that you aren't.

I think that if I were actually between a rock and a hard place that someone could actually, you know... refute my position.

So.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If a self-contradiction doesn't constitute a refutation, then nothing is going to qualify (and deriving a contradiction, i.e. reductio ad absurdum, is a pretty textbook procedure for refutation).

And if your view, that there are no truths, is accurate, if it is correct, if you are right, if your view somehow describes how things are, then it follows that there is at least one exception to your view- the view itself. This is self-contradictory, and self-refuting. But, if your view is not correct/accurate/right/true, then surely it can be dismissed, yes?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi, Mr. Spinkles. Thanks for joining in. I've always enjoyed your contributions.

It seems like you may be conflating two different things: 'X' being a fact, vs. people believing that 'X' is a fact.

Actually we've gone over and over that bit in earlier threads but I don't mind revisiting it with you. Just to let you know, my view is that the word 'fact' is a dangerous one, much like the verb 'know.' Both terms tend to make people believe that they can indeed recognize reality in a way transcending human opinion. Some people, for example, actually argue that there is a substantial difference, a difference in kind, between a human knowing something vs. only believing something. It's downright curious to me.

Anyway, onward.

In this example, 99.5% of humans believe 'X' is a fact. Curious George believes that 'X' is NOT a fact. However, both parties most likely will grant, based on a priori principles about what "reality" is, that 'X' either is, or is not, a fact, and therefore both sides cannot be right.

A clear analysis. I've asked George if he restricts truth only to physical matters but haven't heard back yet on that. So far as enaideakukal, why don't you see if you can get him to commit on that? It's not something I've yet been able to do.

So far as 'reality,' we are not discussing here the current configuration of atoms -- which I agree can probably not exist in two configurations at once, at least not in human experience. I would conditionally agree that there is either an apple on that table or else there is no apple on that table.

But we're not talking about that. The object of our disagreement is not an apple but rather a thing which we are calling 'truth.'

But truth does not seem the same as an apple seems to me. The apple displaces air atoms. But so far as I know, truth couldn't sit on that table over there if it wanted to. It doesn't even seem to be made of atoms.

So if I declare that there is no truth, how does one conclude from that that there must be truth? It's curious. I can't help thinking that someone may have become lost in the language -- mistaking the map for the territory.

I don't allow language that sort of power over me and my thought.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If a self-contradiction doesn't constitute a refutation, then nothing is going to qualify...

I agree. So now you must try to show that there is a self-contradiction. If you could do that, I might even concede!

And if your view, that there are no truths, is accurate, if it is correct, if you are right, if your view somehow describes how things are, then it follows that there is at least one exception to your view- the view itself. This is self-contradictory, and self-refuting. But, if your view is not correct/accurate/right/true, then surely it can be dismissed, yes?

How could it possilby be accurate or correct that there are/aren't truths?

Can you describe that state of affairs for me?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree. So now you must try to show that there is a self-contradiction. If you could do that, I might even concede!

Done and done. Several times, in fact. Apparently you haven't been following very carefully. But it looks like that's a moot point now anyways, i.e.-

How could it possilby be accurate or correct that there... aren't truths?

Ah, ok, so your contention is, by your own admission, not accurate or correct. Good enough for me. Glad you saw the light.

(on the other hand, its not hard to imagine or show how "there are truths" could be accurate- find a truth. "2+2=4" is true. QED.)

 

[Curious George]

I read a whole book one time about 'information'. I guess it was a 50,000-word definition of the term... as the Bible is perhaps a massive definition of 'God.' The book pretty much defined information as 'startling or unexpected knowledge.' In other words, the more unexpected the incoming data, the more information it contained.

Anyway, I don't know what 'information' means to you in the sentence above. I myself can't think of knowledge and information as synonymous, but I'll try my best to keep your conception in mind.



OK. And do you believe that humans are capable of knowing objective truth? If I say a thing is a fact and you say it's a non-fact, is there a way to determine which of us has the fact?

If 99.5% of all humans claim that Jesus walked on the earth, died and rose to heaven -- but you disagree -- is it a fact or a non-fact?



You and I may see the world differently. I'm not here to contend with you over the meaning of words. I'm here to listen to your word usage and see if it seems integrated to me. I don't want you to provide me with pleasing definitions. I want to know how you are using your words.

As for 'a logically indisputable representation of reality', are you saying that the only truth is physical stuff? And that you are willing to discount the 2% of geniuses who disagree with your logic? You will insist that the other guy doesn't have the truth but that you do?



OK. The religionists will say that truth is the understanding we get when the Holy Spirit indwells within us. Do you deny that they have truth and insist that you do have it?

If 99.5% of people believe that x is true, and .5 people believe it is not, then I believe that one of the two groups is objectively right, while the other is not. I understand that this comes from an assumption. I believe that objective truth is possible to ascertain from at least some possible sentient perspective.

Objective truths exist not just in relation to physical stuff, because reality consists of more than just physical stuff. It is not my logic but the foundation of the system by which reality is organized. I accept it is quite possible that my understanding of this foundation is flawed. So, I am open to interpretation which better or more accurately describe the system. I am utterly unimpressed by geniuses. But it is quite possible that anyone could have a better understanding. However I have yet to find a better interpretation than the a=a and a cannot be = to a and not a simultaneously. This foundation is relied upon to have any understanding and communication. I am not well versed in paraconsistent logic, so I am not dismissing it. But I do not currently understand how such a system or any system is better.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, ok, so your contention is, by your own admission, not accurate or correct. Good enough for me. Glad you saw the light.

I haven't believed in magic for years and years now.

(on the other hand, its not hard to imagine or show how "there are truths" could be accurate- find a truth. "2+2=4" is true. QED.)

People who would think seriously about life should never be allowed to do math, I often think. At least, not until they are old enough to handle it properly.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ah, still more evasion, empty rhetoric, and ad hominem. Nice.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, still more evasion, empty rhetoric, and ad hominem. Nice.

I don't think it's nice at all. Have you considered just putting it aside and engaging the debate in good faith?