Anti-realism about truth and facts

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am saying that the sentence "I believe the moon is square" corresponds to objective reality whereas the statement the moon is square, in this case does not.

OK. So you are saying that you are the judge of objective reality.

Can you tell me what you use to make your judgments? Let's say that 99.5% of all humans declared the moon to be square, but you believed it to be round. How would you go about deciding the objective reality of the moon's shape?

Would you accept the observations of the 99.5%... or would you stick to your own observations?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It depends on the definitions we use and the system of validation.

So if I declared that I am both theist and atheist, you would not assert that I'm making a contradictory claim?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No I am not stating that how you frame your sentence changes reality, only that one frame corresponds to objective reality and the other to subjective reality.

A better way to say it is that one way corresponds to reality, whereas the other does not- no need to introduce any distinction between subjective and objective reality here.

If AmbiguousGuy gets weird when we use terminology like "truth", "fact", "objective" and so on (commonplace and generally unproblematic as it may be), that's fine- we can speak more generally; all we need here is the relatively obvious thesis that we can use language to talk about the world, or that communication about the world is possible. All the evidence suggests that it is- otherwise your ability to bring my the wrench I need when I ask you to "bring me that wrench" would be a fortuitous coincidence, as would you and your date showing up at the same bar at the agreed upon time, your pizza being delivered to your front door, and so on. Clearly, we can talk about the world, and we can do so successfully. (and, if we could not, then this entire thread/discussion would've been moot and pointless to begin with)

Coupled with the also intuitive and well-corroborated thesis that things are a certain way in the world- that some particular person is the President of the United States, that 2 and 2 have a sum of 4, that grass has a certain color (usually green), and so on, then it follows that there are truths- truths are those instances of language matching up with the way the world is. And AmbiguousGuy's position presupposes this as well- which is precisely the fly in his pudding- if the world is not a certain way (in other words, if there is not an "objective reality"), and we cannot talk about it or successfully describe it, then his view has no more merit than any other view, and he is not correct (because it would suffer this same limitation). But if the world is a certain way, and we can talk about it, and his view represents a successful, accurate, or correct way of describing it, then his view is an example of precisely that which it denies- accurate linguistic descriptions of reality. Thus the self-contradiction.

So, on either alternative, his view is mistaken/incorrect/inaccurate/has no merit- whatever terminology you prefer; or, put simply, rock+hard place. Although this basic, unavoidable self-refutation is certainly a decisive nail in the coffin, we would also do well to point out that this view is at odds with common sense (according to which we make and distinguish truths all the time), as well as the entire human scientific/rational/explanatory project (which presupposes the two theses mentioned above), which has produced the very computers and internet we're using to carry on this conversation (talk about pulling out the rug from under your own feet!)- if we are forced to choose between the sophist's position that their are no truths on the one hand, and the position underlying science and reason, which has provided us with all of our amenities and necessities of life, the choice should be even more obvious.

 

[Curious George]

?

Whatever a belief might be, I really can't imagine thinking of all beliefs as objectively true. I just can't.
?

Let us think of beliefs differently, to illustrate this point. you would agree that G believes x, is a statement that describes a relationship between g and x? Similarly we have distance which is another relationship. something can be defined in part by its relation to other things. i.e. the apple is five feet from Tom. if however we say the apple is five feet this lends itself to contradiction if I am talking about a relational quality wherein I have failed to identify the subject to which the relational definition is true. Since I am withholding the subject, only I have failed to communicate my subjective truth in a meaningful manner. However, the statement can still be true subjectively.

 

[Curious George]

A better way to say it is that one way corresponds to reality, whereas the other does not- no need to introduce any distinction between subjective and objective reality here.

If AmbiguousGuy gets weird when we use terminology like "truth", "fact", "objective" and so on (commonplace and generally unproblematic as it may be), that's fine- we can speak more generally; all we need here is the relatively obvious thesis that we can use language to talk about the world, or that communication about the world is possible. All the evidence suggests that it is- otherwise your ability to bring my the wrench I need when I ask you to "bring me that wrench" would be a fortuitous coincidence, as would you and your date showing up at the same bar at the agreed upon time, your pizza being delivered to your front door, and so on. Clearly, we can talk about the world, and we can do so successfully. (and, if we could not, then this entire thread/discussion would've been moot and pointless to begin with)

Coupled with the also intuitive and well-corroborated thesis that things are a certain way in the world- that some particular person is the President of the United States, that 2 and 2 have a sum of 4, that grass has a certain color (usually green), and so on, then it follows that there are truths- truths are those instances of language matching up with the way the world is. And AmbiguousGuy's position presupposes this as well- which is precisely the fly in his pudding- if the world is not a certain way (in other words, if there is not an "objective reality"), and we cannot talk about it or successfully describe it, then his view has no more merit than any other view, and he is not correct (because it would suffer this same limitation). But if the world is a certain way, and we can talk about it, and his view represents a successful, accurate, or correct way of describing it, then his view is an example of precisely that which it denies- accurate linguistic descriptions of reality. Thus the self-contradiction.

So, on either alternative, his view is mistaken/incorrect/inaccurate/has no merit- whatever terminology you prefer; or, put simply, rock+hard place. Although this basic, unavoidable self-refutation is certainly a decisive nail in the coffin, we would also do well to point out that this view is at odds with common sense (according to which we make and distinguish truths all the time), as well as the entire human scientific/rational/explanatory project (which presupposes the two theses mentioned above), which has produced the very computers and internet we're using to carry on this conversation (talk about pulling out the rug from under your own feet!)- if we are forced to choose between the sophist's position that their are no truths on the one hand, and the position underlying science and reason, which has provided us with all of our amenities and necessities of life, the choice should be even more obvious.

While I agree with most of the above, our ability to use language in a meaningful way also illustrates an area of want in classical logic.

you say to me "bring me the wrench"
it is reasonable to assume that you want me to bring you the wrench.

the second does not follow but for reliance on our preference of classical logic. But this is only expressed in an ought. if we start with the thesis that language can communicate truths in a meaningful way and assuming the non deceptive nature of your command, the truth that I ought to assume naturally occurs and we rely on such truths but classical logic fails to describe this phenomenon.

 

[Curious George]

OK. So you are saying that you are the judge of objective reality.

Can you tell me what you use to make your judgments? Let's say that 99.5% of all humans declared the moon to be square, but you believed it to be round. How would you go about deciding the objective reality of the moon's shape?

Would you accept the observations of the 99.5%... or would you stick to your own observations?

Nope, I am not the judge. I can judge but I am not The judge. I am saying there is a difference between saying I believe the moon is square and saying the moon is square. This difference deals with relationships. Anyone can judge, the question is whether they can do so validly.

 

[Curious George]

So if I declared that I am both theist and atheist, you would not assert that I'm making a contradictory claim?

I suppose that depends as well. in person I would probably ask questions. If I found a contradiction I would then challenge that contradiction which would force us to discuss the system of logic, on the net I might either try to lay out an argument against such, or ask questions depending on my mood. But either way I would be trying to understand The why behind your statement, because that matters more to me than how you personally categorize yourself.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

While I agree with most of the above, our ability to use language in a meaningful way also illustrates an area of want in classical logic.

you say to me "bring me the wrench"
it is reasonable to assume that you want me to bring you the wrench.

the second does not follow but for reliance on our preference of classical logic. But this is only expressed in an ought. if we start with the thesis that language can communicate truths in a meaningful way and assuming the non deceptive nature of your command, the truth that I ought to assume naturally occurs and we rely on such truths but classical logic fails to describe this phenomenon.

This is a little bit of a red herring, if you're referring to the difference between propositions (assertions, linguistic items that are truth-functional) and imperatives (do this, you ought to do that); we could just as easily give examples of successful communication which involve conveying truths (propositions) rather than conveying wants or imperatives- when I give you the directions to my house, your ability to successfully find your way there is evidence that successful communication has occurred, in that I have been able to convey to you an accurate description of some aspect of (objective) reality via language. If anything that was just a bad choice of example on my part, although so far as it goes, you are right that propositional logic is unable to capture the variety of ways we actually use language (because not all language is propositional), including (but not limited) to expressing wants, imperatives, desires, obligations, etc.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Let us think of beliefs differently, to illustrate this point. you would agree that G believes x, is a statement that describes a relationship between g and x?

I would find that a quite strange way of expressing it. I don't consider myself to have a relationship with unicorns by virtue of believing in unicorns -- although I guess it's one way of describing the situation. Just not my way.

Similarly we have distance which is another relationship.

Distance? Sorry... I'm lost again.

...something can be defined in part by its relation to other things. i.e. the apple is five feet from Tom. if however we say the apple is five feet this lends itself to contradiction if I am talking about a relational quality wherein I have failed to identify the subject to which the relational definition is true.

I've never heard anyone say, 'The apple is five feet.'

If they did, I would assume a misspeak or brain damage or non-native speaker, etc., unless and until they could explain themselves. I don't think I'd see it as contradiction at all, though. Just a sentence fragment.

Since I am withholding the subject, only I have failed to communicate my subjective truth in a meaningful manner. However, the statement can still be true subjectively.

Apparently you and I just don't organize our words in a manner which is very sharable, George. I'm sorry. I really can't follow what you're saying. But thanks for joining me, and you're welcome to the last word.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I suppose that depends as well. in person I would probably ask questions. If I found a contradiction I would then challenge that contradiction which would force us to discuss the system of logic, on the net I might either try to lay out an argument against such, or ask questions depending on my mood. But either way I would be trying to understand The why behind your statement, because that matters more to me than how you personally categorize yourself.

Great. Glad to hear that. But there are others who would insist that my claim 'is a contradiction.' Those folks seem to me to believe that contradiction exists within the language, rather than within the mind which has produced the language.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Great. Glad to hear that. But there are others who would insist that my claim 'is a contradiction.' Those folks seem to me to believe that contradiction exists within the language, rather than within the mind which has produced the language.

If it quacks and waddles... In any case, this has already been addressed, but since it seems you've more or less thrown in the towel at this point, I suppose this is all sort of moot.

 

[Willamena]

Great. Glad to hear that. But there are others who would insist that my claim 'is a contradiction.' Those folks seem to me to believe that contradiction exists within the language, rather than within the mind which has produced the language.

(Out of curiosity) In as far as a claim has a referent whose object resides precisely within the mind that has produced the language used to describe it, what do you see as the difference?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

(Out of curiosity) In as far as a claim has a referent whose object resides precisely within the mind that has produced the language used to describe it, what do you see as the difference?

Not sure what you're asking. What is the difference between contradiction living in the words vs. living in the mind?

Well, words are not meaning, so how can they be contradictory? Meaning is a thing which exists within the individual mind. Words are just little bits we use to try and transfer that meaning to another mind.

Unfortunately, some people get a little mixed up by the similarity between some words and mathematical symbols. That's how it seems to me, anyway.

 

[Willamena]

Not sure what you're asking. What is the difference between contradiction living in the words vs. living in the mind?

Well, words are not meaning, so how can they be contradictory? Meaning is a thing which exists within the individual mind. Words are just little bits we use to try and transfer that meaning to another mind.

Unfortunately, some people get a little mixed up by the similarity between some words and mathematical symbols. That's how it seems to me, anyway.

Why are words not also the meanings that exist within the individual minds? Without that there is nothing to transfer.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, words are not meaning, so how can they be contradictory? Meaning is a thing which exists within the individual mind. Words are just little bits we use to try and transfer that meaning to another mind.

The self-proclaimed master of language is unable to explain how a simple contradiction works? If the meaning denoted by these words is logically inconsistent with the meaning denoted by those words, that's called "a contradiction". And talking about the meaning of words is simply shorthand- clearly meaning doesn't "live in words"- we use words to express meaning, and in doing so, give them meaning; and if the meanings we give the words contradict one another, that's a self-contradiction.

Thus, your position is self-contradictory unless you are giving some of your words meanings they don't usually have, and have failed to tell anyone this (even ignoring my explicit prompt to state what different sense you are using, if this is indeed the case); if, however, you are using your words the way they ordinarily are used in the English language, asserting that there are no truths is asserting that it is true that there are no truths, for all the reasons we've covered now ad naseum (and which you've completely failed to respond to), this is a self-contradiction.

Anyways, the result of this thread was more or less a foregone conclusion; AmbiguousGuy's position is self-refuting, nonsensical, and empirically false- the question was whether he could at least provide a decent discussion by providing a reasoned, intelligent defense of this position; but he hasn't even attempted this, preferring to try to play the Socratic interlocutor (with rather comical, if pathetically so, results) and avoid all the relevant issues. Given his posting patterns and general aversion to real discussion, this hardly comes as any real surprise- but we should nevertheless be slightly disappointed he didn't even attempt to make good on his offer. In any case, if the person for whom the thread was created has given up trying to make his case, I'm done wasting further time on the thread. So much for the claim that there are no truths.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why are words not also the meanings that exist within the individual minds? Without that there is nothing to transfer.

You could say it that way and I wouldn't object. The fog grows thickly and quickly when we talk about language and meaning, doesn't it?

My main point is that words aren't numbers, alas, which can point to exactly the same thing each time. They're way messier than that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The self-proclaimed master of language is unable to explain how a simple contradiction works? If the meaning denoted by these words is logically inconsistent with the meaning denoted by those words, that's called "a contradiction". And talking about the meaning of words is simply shorthand- clearly meaning doesn't "live in words"- we use words to express meaning, and in doing so, give them meaning; and if the meanings we give the words contradict one another, that's a self-contradiction.

Thus, your position is self-contradictory unless you are giving some of your words meanings they don't usually have, and have failed to tell anyone this (even ignoring my explicit prompt to state what different sense you are using, if this is indeed the case); if, however, you are using your words the way they ordinarily are used in the English language, asserting that there are no truths is asserting that it is true that there are no truths, for all the reasons we've covered now ad naseum (and which you've completely failed to respond to), this is a self-contradiction.

Anyways, the result of this thread was more or less a foregone conclusion; AmbiguousGuy's position is self-refuting, nonsensical, and empirically false- the question was whether he could at least provide a decent discussion by providing a reasoned, intelligent defense of this position; but he hasn't even attempted this, preferring to try to play the Socratic interlocutor (with rather comical, if pathetically so, results) and avoid all the relevant issues. Given his posting patterns and general aversion to real discussion, this hardly comes as any real surprise- but we should nevertheless be slightly disappointed he didn't even attempt to make good on his offer. In any case, if the person for whom the thread was created has given up trying to make his case, I'm done wasting further time on the thread. So much for the claim that there are no truths.

Sorry. Still not civil enough yet to warrant my attention.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Just be honest- you have nothing you can say; 16 pages into a thread you requested, and you've yet to offer a single argument in defense of your claim, or respond to any criticisms of it. You clearly were scamming me when you invited me to create the thread- won't fall for that one again. Back to the shallow end of the pool for you, where you belong, taunting born-again Christians and plucking other low-hanging fruit; perhaps next time you'll know better than to try to tackle adult topics like philosophy or language, biting off more than you can chew in the process.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Just be honest- you have nothing you can say; 16 pages into a thread you requested, and you've yet to offer a single argument in defense of your claim, or respond to any criticisms of it.

I've proven, thoroughly and exhaustively, that there is no contradiction in the statement that "There is no truth."

Sorry. That's what has happened.

But if you would be willing to speak to me with civility, and to answer direct questions when asked, and define your terms in simple words when asked, then I'd be willing to do it again for you and our audience.

Heck, I'd be willing to try it if you'd just adhere to my first condition... civility.

 

[Willamena]

You could say it that way and I wouldn't object. The fog grows thickly and quickly when we talk about language and meaning, doesn't it?

My main point is that words aren't numbers, alas, which can point to exactly the same thing each time. They're way messier than that.

Even numbers point to something unique each time--no "two" referents the same. However, the meaning of what they point at each time is what can remain relatively consistent.

We hold the world together.