Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Ok, let's put aside all of your irrelevant ad-hominem and evasive rhetoric, and I'll deal with everything on-topic and pertinent that you've said... Done.

Boy, that was fast.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Let me know if/when you have something to say about the matter that is NOT evasive bluster and ad-hominem. I won't hold my breath (learned my lesson on that count).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

It's interesting to me that you and Mr. Spinkles and E are all using X that way.

The thing about math, as I heard Legion remark recently, is that it does not tolerate ambiguity. So the symbol X is obviously the symbol X is clearly the symbol X -- each and every time we see it. But words aren't that, are they? Sure, the physical marks on the page are fixed, meaningless, unchanging. But their references aren't. I think a word rarely or never means the same thing from one usage to another, even by the same person. Actually I rarely even think of words as standalone units of meaning. For me, they are way down on the bottom of the meaning scale -- below phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, human minds.

So anyway, let's run the equation here using "X = Jesus was the son of God." It would be hard even for me to argue that X does not equal X. We can see both Xs there on the page in front of our eyes. But I can argue with a completely straight face that Jesus was both the son of God and not the son of God.

Contradiction in language is about mere symbols, I think, but it seems that some people get confused about that. Coders seem especially afflicted, in my experience. They manipulate language and can forget that their words are only symbols and come to believe that they are able to manipulate the world itself. Academic logicians are another group which seems to sometimes lean too far in that direction.

I understand that this comes from an assumption. I believe that objective truth is possible to ascertain from at least some possible sentient perspective.

If 99.5% of the other sentient beings say that the moon is square -- while you see it as round -- then what is the objective truth?

If you can't answer that -- which I hope you can't -- what's the use of championing the existence of objective reality?

Objective truths exist not just in relation to physical stuff, because reality consists of more than just physical stuff.

What other stuff do you mean? Can you give examples?

It is not my logic but the foundation of the system by which reality is organized.

I'm sorry but I really can't make sense of that. Maybe you could say it a different way.

However I have yet to find a better interpretation than the a=a and a cannot be = to a and not a simultaneously.

Well, I'm certainly not arguing against that -- against the manipulation of symbols. But I would argue that truth can exist and not exist simultaneously. I'd also argue that Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is both smoking hot and ice cold at the same time.

By the way, I am both an atheist and a theist. I'm also neither. May I ask how you feel about that claim?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Let me know if/when you have something to say about the matter that is NOT evasive bluster and ad-hominem. I won't hold my breath (learned my lesson on that count).

There is no one else like you, man. No other debater could possibly post as you post.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem... you ad hominemer, you!

Irony should be spelled with an E, I think.

 

[Curious George]

It's interesting to me that you and Mr. Spinkles and E are all using X that way.

The thing about math, as I heard Legion remark recently, is that it does not tolerate ambiguity. So the symbol X is obviously the symbol X is clearly the symbol X -- each and every time we see it. But words aren't that, are they? Sure, the physical marks on the page are fixed, meaningless, unchanging. But their references aren't. I think a word rarely or never means the same thing from one usage to another, even by the same person. Actually I rarely even think of words as standalone units of meaning. For me, they are way down on the bottom of the meaning scale -- below phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, human minds.

So anyway, let's run the equation here using "X = Jesus was the son of God." It would be hard even for me to argue that X does not equal X. We can see both Xs there on the page in front of our eyes. But I can argue with a completely straight face that Jesus was both the son of God and not the son of God.

Contradiction in language is about mere symbols, I think, but it seems that some people get confused about that. Coders seem especially afflicted, in my experience. They manipulate language and can forget that their words are only symbols and come to believe that they are able to manipulate the world itself. Academic logicians are another group which seems to sometimes lean too far in that direction.

If 99.5% of the other sentient beings say that the moon is square -- while you see it as round -- then what is the objective truth?

If you can't answer that -- which I hope you can't -- what's the use of championing the existence of objective reality?

What other stuff do you mean? Can you give examples?

I'm sorry but I really can't make sense of that. Maybe you could say it a different way.

Well, I'm certainly not arguing against that -- against the manipulation of symbols. But I would argue that truth can exist and not exist simultaneously. I'd also argue that Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is both smoking hot and ice cold at the same time.

By the way, I am both an atheist and a theist. I'm also neither. May I ask how you feel about that claim?

But the jaylo paradox you present is a semantic trick. It takes two different definitions of hot and puts them against each other. Yet if we agree on the definition of hot, there is no communication error. If our agreed definition is subjective, i.e. inducing an erection in the viewer, then we can have variation but only from subjective viewers putting their subjective experiences against each other. Thus, the objective truth contains the subjective opinion, i.e. jaylo was hot to bob. We see that this subjective truth limits our subjects to those capable of getting erections, thus no woman or impotent male could find jaylo hot. If we change the definition to be more open we can include more subjects. I would state that our concept of objective truth is merely the extension to all subjects including theoretical entities which could have sentience. This eliminates all subjective disagreement except for those who hold do not adhere to first two axioms of classical logic. now we could try to eliminate those, but that tears down possible communication for if something can be both a and not a, any discussion or understanding is futile. We could allow for a to be both a and not a, in the grand scheme of things but understanding can only come when this holds true for at least the majority of claims. So, if we agree on 90% of our claims we can work towards understanding within that % and use acceptance for the remaining %. But ultimately this arrangement of ours only works in our subsets of reality. When we abstract to eliminate subjective disagreement, the only remaining truth is a=a and a cannot both =a and =/=a. This disagreement is fundamental to understanding. So, we can only agree to ignore the issue as an absolute, and focus on instances where we agree a does not both =a and =/= a. But again, I do not have a firm grasp on paraconsistent logic schemes, so I there might be another way around this issue, and I may just be clinging to classical logic.

Legion and I had a discussion similar to this discussing quantum logic. It would be good if he entered this discussion. I believe are discussion centered around the idea of quantum logic violating classical logic. specifically the second rule. whereas I thought that particle wave duality signified years of reliance of a false dichotomy. Now legion explained it to me once so I at least thought I understood, but such an argument leads credence to the idea that we must employ different logics to different systems. But no system of which I am aware completely abandons truth. if you are arguing that truth in one system is not necessarily truth in another system, I can see your point. But ultimately, all of these different systems can be grouped together as parts of a larger system we call reality. In this larger system what is truth must encompass some truth for the system to remain valid. Though I am not thoroughly convinced we should toss out the law of non contradiction, I know of no system that tosses out the rule of identity. Thus if nothing else a=a must be a truth for any of the sub-systems to hold truth within that system. Accordingly, there are no truths is possibly valid, but ultimately there are truths.

knowing then that there is truth, we can create a system where we say there is no truth, the question becomes not whether such a system is valid, but whether such a system is meaningful. I suggest it is not.

Now, all of the above is probably just more incoherent ramblings from a curious fellow. If any of it is digestible and worthy of discussion, let us pursue such discussion; if not let us count it as my one moronic post of the day and move back to more fruitful parts of the discussion. And, though I know I am oft capable of many more than one moronic post, I anticipate any just audience would only hold those posts exceeding my allotted one against me for a minimal time period.

Cheers.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Now, all of the above is probably just more incoherent ramblings from a curious fellow. If any of it is digestible and worthy of discussion, let us pursue such discussion; if not let us count it as my one moronic post of the day and move back to more fruitful parts of the discussion.

I doubt it's moronic but I can't really say what it is. For me, this is all about how we are using our words, so the only chance I have of understanding you would be for you to address the individual items in my message, pretty much one at a time. I just don't do well with large blocks of texts and with lecturers exchanging lectures.

So I don't know if your message is genius or irrelevant because I can't really follow it very well. I don't know enough about you and what your words mean to you.

But thanks for writing and you're welcome to write again any time.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But the jaylo paradox you present is a semantic trick. It takes two different definitions of hot and puts them against each other.

My point is that all of language is ambiguous, all the time. It's not math. We can't manipulate words as we manipulate math symbols.

Something like that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Curious George]

I doubt it's moronic but I can't really say what it is. For me, this is all about how we are using our words, so the only chance I have of understanding you would be for you to address the individual items in my message, pretty much one at a time. I just don't do well with large blocks of texts and with lecturers exchanging lectures.

So I don't know if your message is genius or irrelevant because I can't really follow it very well. I don't know enough about you and what your words mean to you.

But thanks for writing and you're welcome to write again any time.

Basically, even though we can try to extinguish portions of the laws of thought, to extinguish all of them is impossible if we intend to understand anything.

I will try to address your points though.

1 (referring to the use of x vs. words)

I agree, language imperfectly communicates thoughts. but miscommunication does not mean the underlying logic is wrong. I use x because this implies a common acceptance of a definition and removes ambiguity within the definition. I understand that many disagreements arise because of semantics wherein there is an inherent disagreement on definitions. If such a disagreement does not exist however be able to agree on the argument. Thus I use x to symbolize.an agreed upon definition. Because we interpret the world from our specific frame of reference it is hard if not impossible to completely agree on a truth. However were this impediment not there we should agree on the truth. In other words, removed from our subjective bias there exists a definition that is objective.


2 (discussing contradiction)

I would suggest that if we accept the law of non contradiction, then finding contradiction in our thought allows for discovery of truth closer to that of objective truth.

3 (on the moon)

It is not for me to say who is right, however assuming we agree on the definition of the terms, one group or both could be wrong. if we can eliminate what shape the moon is not we can approach a closer version to the objective shape of the moon. But again this assumes that an objective truth exists.

4 (jaylo)

This is not showing a real contradiction, it is a false contradiction arising from the application of two separate definitions.

 

[Curious George]

My point is that all of language is ambiguous, all the time. It's not math. We can't manipulate words as we manipulate math symbols.

Something like that is what I was trying to say.

well I am assuming things exist beyond subjective interpretation, but I don't know how to prove it.

But if something exists beyond subjective interpretation then it is possible to define that something without subjective interpretation.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But the jaylo paradox you present is a semantic trick.

Right; an apparent contradiction relying on equivocation is not an example of a reasonable or acceptable self-contradiction, and doesn't get AmbiguousGuy or the sophist generally off the hook regarding the self-contradiction inherent in the anti-realism regarding truth- if I say "the bank is not a bank", this looks like a genuine contradiction. But suppose what I'm trying to say, for whatever silly reason, that the financial bank is not a river bank- the contradiction only appears as such because "bank" is equivocal.

If AmbiguousGuy is claiming that his own self-contradiction is similar, he needs to state how he's using "truth"/"true" in different senses, otherwise cases like this don't help.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

...I can argue with a completely straight face that Jesus was both the son of God and not the son of God.

You may be able to maintain a straight face, but without equivocating, you cannot do this without contradicting yourself. Of course, in all probability you will specify the sense in which Christ was the son of God, and the sense in which he was not, to alleviate the contradiction, and make your argument coherent and intelligible. But saying that Christ was and was not the son of God, in the selfsame sense of "son of God", is self-contradictory, and is simply incoherent.

Contradiction in language is about mere symbols, I think

That's deceptive; it can't be "about mere symbols" in that contradictions are some relation between symbols- without an interpretation, or having a meaning assigned or something to symbolize, there cannot be a contradiction- how would two random symbols, considered as mere symbols, contradict one another? What are they contradicting, if the symbols don't mean anything?

Even "A & ~A" is not a contradiction until we assign some meaning or function to these symbols "A", "&", "~"... But given a particular interpretation or assignment, which we are consistent with (as we are not, with "bank" in the example above), we get a contradiction.

If 99.5% of the other sentient beings say that the moon is square -- while you see it as round -- then what is the objective truth?

Even if we were absolutely unable to learn anything reliable about the "objective", external world we live in- if we could never completely trust our observations of the shape of the moon- it would not follow that there are not determinate states of affairs in the world nevertheless; in other words, that the moon has some shape, which is not open to interpretation or opinion- regardless of whether anyone knows that shape beyond all doubt or not.

If you can't answer that -- which I hope you can't -- what's the use of championing the existence of objective reality?

Because there isn't really a viable alternative model, and that of a shared, external, objective world works pretty darn well. In fact, the data is pretty much perfectly consistent with this picture- a shared, external, and objective world inhabited by creatures with generally reliable, but not infallible, means of obtaining information about that world. Sometimes we get things right, sometimes we get things wrong.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Basically, even though we can try to extinguish portions of the laws of thought, to extinguish all of them is impossible if we intend to understand anything.

Sounds reasonable to me. I can't imagine anyone trying to extinguish the laws of thought or how they might go about doing it. Seems like they'd have to insane themselves in order to pull off a thing like that.

But I have no idea why you've said such a thing. I can't see any relevance to our discussion, I mean.

I agree, language imperfectly communicates thoughts. but miscommunication does not mean the underlying logic is wrong.

OK. Again I agree but can't see any relevance to our discussion. If you see relevance, you'll have to explain whyso.

I use x because this implies a common acceptance of a definition and removes ambiguity within the definition.

I just don't have much use for word games. I mean, I'm pretty good at them (OK, OK... very good at them), but they bore me. I'm interested in the outer world and how to best conceive it and explain it.

Academics can sit around constructing word puzzles if they like. I'm sure there's some use to it. But out in the real world, definitions are virtually never stripped of ambiguity and people virtually never agree on definitions. That's an illusion, at least in my experience. People are tricked into believing that others share their same definitions, but if you set two communicators down after a short dialogue and ask them to define their terms, the odds are one in a trillion that they'd define their terms exactly the same. I'm talking here about a written or spoken string of words which purports to equal the term being defined. They might get lucky and define one or two simple words the same, but probably not even that. More likely, they'd just offer a synonym, as you offered 'information' in place of 'knowledge.'

Most people don't even know what they are trying to mean with their own words. They sure don't enjoy defining them. That meta-language stuff makes even grown men squirm and look for excuses to back out of the conversation.

I understand that many disagreements arise because of semantics wherein there is an inherent disagreement on definitions.

More than many, I would argue. Shared meaning is mostly illusion. Language fools us. Don't you notice, even here in this place, how people are always talking past one another. It's because each one assumes that the other is using shared word meanings. They think that everyone else is meaning exactly the same as they are meaning with their words. There's a lot of chaos that passes for communication, you know.

It happens with spoken language, too. Watch closely. We don't hear every syllable of every word spoken to us. Instead, we fill in the gaps. We assume that we know. Much of comedy and lots of tragedy comes from this constant miscommunication by those who assume they are hearing and understanding everything said to them by the other.

If such a disagreement does not exist however be able to agree on the argument. Thus I use x to symbolize.an agreed upon definition.

Sure. We can make word puzzles with the language, sitting down together and formally agreeing that X is to mean 'these eight words' and then applying our logic to X. Academic philosophers love to do that. But I see that as mostly just a technique for grasping at certainty. We want to believe that we can know stuff. It's why young men go into philosophy, most of them... because they want to find the truth.

Because we interpret the world from our specific frame of reference it is hard if not impossible to completely agree on a truth.

Yep. Sure seems that way to me. All we can do is grasp semi-blindly at things with our words.

However were this impediment not there we should agree on the truth.

Right. And if I could fly by flapping my arms, I'd don a crow costume and spy on my neighbor's sexy wife when she'd sunbathing in their back yard. But I think that's probably just fantasy.

In other words, removed from our subjective bias there exists a definition that is objective.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what that means to you. How could an objective definition exist? Can you say more about that? I can't conceive of such a thing.

I would suggest that if we accept the law of non contradiction, then finding contradiction in our thought allows for discovery of truth closer to that of objective truth.

Sure. It can help. The danger comes when we begin to let the word laws control us. We see the map and think it's the territory and that we must go where we are told.

It is not for me to say who is right, however assuming we agree on the definition of the terms, one group or both could be wrong. if we can eliminate what shape the moon is not we can approach a closer version to the objective shape of the moon. But again this assumes that an objective truth exists.

God came to me recently and told me that the moon doesn't really exist. He's playing a joke on us. He gets a kick out of watching us argue whether it's square or round. Don't ask me to explain God. We prophets only pass along His message. We aren't responsible for the content.

Do you say that my claim is impossible -- that it could not possibly be objectively true?

This is not showing a real contradiction, it is a false contradiction arising from the application of two separate definitions.

Try it this way:

#1) Jaylo is hot.
#2) Jaylo is not hot.

Now most people in the world will claim that the two statements are contradictory. They'll argue to the heavens that 'the laws of thought' demand that they are contradictory. Just look at the words. One claims X. The other claims not-X. It is necessary for us to see them as contradictory claims.

Except, of course, the two statements are not at all contradictory... as I demonstrated. Jaylo can be hot and not-hot at once.

It's why I claim that contradiction is best understood as existing within human minds, not within words themselves. It's just language. We shouldn't get all rigid about it, I think. We sure shouldn't let word puzzles jerk us around, in my view.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If AmbiguousGuy is claiming that his own self-contradiction is similar, he needs to state how he's using "truth"/"true" in different senses, otherwise cases like this don't help.

I'm happy to answer any specific, sincere, civil question about my worldview.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Try it this way:

#1) Jaylo is hot.
#2) Jaylo is not hot.

Now most people in the world will claim that the two statements are contradictory. They'll argue to the heavens that 'the laws of thought' demand that they are contradictory. Just look at the words. One claims X. The other claims not-X. It is necessary for us to see them as contradictory claims.

Except, of course, the two statements are not at all contradictory... as I demonstrated. Jaylo can be hot and not-hot at once.

It's why I claim that contradiction is best understood as existing within human minds, not within words themselves. It's just language. We shouldn't get all rigid about it, I think. We sure shouldn't let word puzzles jerk us around, in my view.

Yeah, already dealt with this. If "hot" is being used in the same sense, then they are contradicting claims, and cannot both be true; you're simply relying on equivocation. However, in a sense, it is accurate to say that contradictions "only exist in human minds"- contradictions sure don't exist in reality, and so if you are asserting a contradiction (as you are with your contention about truth), then we can be sure that your assertion does not reflect reality- or, in other words, that it is not true.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm happy to answer any specific, sincere, civil question about my worldview.

Hah! Buh-dum-csh!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm happy to answer any specific, sincere, civil question about my worldview.

Hah! Buh-dum-csh!

Although you could prove me wrong by actually responding to the rest of the post you ripped that sentence from.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is no one else like you, man. No other debater could possibly post as you post.

You flatter me, but I'm far from the only poster capable of identifying and objecting to ad-hominems substituted for actual arguments. And you're hardly being sneaky or covert about it- at various times you've mocked my view as being similar to religious fundamentalism or fanaticism (without substantiating this, of course), insinuated it is a matter of ignorance regarding language (ditto, no substantiation), that it is born of fear (yep, once again)- and probably a few others I don't recall.

Now, if you were simply sprinkling in ad-hominems with more substantial and on-topic arguments, I'd be okay with all this. But so far, all you've done here is offer ad hominems, and dodge questions- and that got old after about page 2. If the problem is that you need a tutorial on what constitutes an ad-hominem, or, more pertinently, what a valid argument looks like in general, start a thread on it and I'll be glad to help you out, otherwise, grow up please.

 

[Curious George]

Sounds reasonable to me. I can't imagine anyone trying to extinguish the laws of thought or how they might go about doing it. Seems like they'd have to insane themselves in order to pull off a thing like that.

But I have no idea why you've said such a thing. I can't see any relevance to our discussion, I mean.

OK. Again I agree but can't see any relevance to our discussion. If you see relevance, you'll have to explain whyso.

Ahh, I think I understand a little better. You are saying the "word games" are the exercises that involve x or some other variable, while I tend to think of the word games as jaylo examples.

The reason I think this way is that the variables reduce ambiguity while the apparent contradiction such as jaylo tend to capitalize on some semantic discrepancy.

The laws of thought are assumed truths. If you were suggesting there were no truths then I assumed you would be saying they are not valid either. if we take away these we destroy our whole system of validation, but if we leave these we are still assuming their truth. I suppose that we can assume truths and have them not be true, but it seems ironic to assume truths and say they are not true.

 

[Curious George]

Academics can sit around constructing word puzzles if they like. I'm sure there's some use to it. But out in the real world, definitions are virtually never stripped of ambiguity and people virtually never agree on definitions. That's an illusion, at least in my experience. People are tricked into believing that others share their same definitions, but if you set two communicators down after a short dialogue and ask them to define their terms, the odds are one in a trillion that they'd define their terms exactly the same. I'm talking here about a written or spoken string of words which purports to equal the term being defined. They might get lucky and define one or two simple words the same, but probably not even that. More likely, they'd just offer a synonym, as you offered 'information' in place of 'knowledge.'

While I used a synonym for knowledge, I am not so sure they mean the same thing.

I would say all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. I suppose I could refine this further by defining information.

Information- anything which contributes to a description a thing

 

[Curious George]

Most people don't even know what they are trying to mean with their own words. They sure don't enjoy defining them. That meta-language stuff makes even grown men squirm and look for excuses to back out of the conversation.

More than many, I would argue. Shared meaning is mostly illusion. Language fools us. Don't you notice, even here in this place, how people are always talking past one another. It's because each one assumes that the other is using shared word meanings. They think that everyone else is meaning exactly the same as they are meaning with their words. There's a lot of chaos that passes for communication, you know.

I understand this. I am extremely guilty of not knowing what I say. However I am a little better at knowing what other people say- not much, but a little. I really try to listen to others- though some topics as my posts will show, flip a switch in me where I absolutely stop listening and continue to talk past people. But I am usually aware that I am doing so, and can admit it.

All of this, human nature, does little diminish the possibility of objective truth. And if the word games of variables hold true, then such an objective truth is indeed available. Now, whether we can fully ascertain such truth is a moot point when discussing whether or not such a truth exists.