How Do We Know Something is True?

[Sunstone]

PLEASE NOTE: I have edited the OP for the sake of clarity.​

What is truth? How would you define it?

If someone says, "X is true and Y is false", then what is the distinguishing characteristic that makes one true and the other false?

How do we know that a claim, proposition, or assertion is true?

What, if anything, constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

Please note: I am not asking something along the lines of, "Are facts true?", or "Does objective reality exist?" Rather, I am asking how we know whether a proposition is true?

Is whether or not something "feels true" to us a reliable guide to whether or not it actually is true?

Can we trust authorities, such as a person, tradition, or scripture, to tell us whether something is true?

Are the sciences our most reliable guides to truths?




For those of us who enjoy saying things like, "It depends on what you mean by 'truth'.", or "It depends on what you mean by 'to know'.", here two suggested definitions:

A proposition is true to the extent to which it corresponds to a state of affairs.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Feel free to use your own definitions of those words, but please make clear what your own definitions are.

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

 

[Jumi]

When a claim is accurately defined and all steps of proof can be taken and verified by others, that is something knowable.

 

[LukeS]

To me truth and states of affairs are primarily phenomenalist. Relating to direct experience and to personal life memories.

I would add that knowledge can be defeasible tho, all inductive claims are defeasible I think..

Science gives us corroborated theories. Just as memory and cognitive maps and schemas help us navigate the maze of reality, also science too.

I think largely that religious "truths" are pragmatic, in that faith works for people - but also there is an intuitive grasp of God for some, and this can be seen as foudaitonalist, underived basic belief.

 

[Curious George]

How do we know that something, such as a claim, proposition, or assertion, is true? Put differently, what constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

Is whether or not something "feels true" to us a reliable guide to whether or not it actually is true?

Can we trust authorities, such as a person, tradition, or scripture, to tell us whether something is true?

Are the sciences our most reliable guides to truths?




For those of us who enjoy saying things like, "It depends on what you mean by 'truth'.", or "It depends on what you mean by 'to know'.", here two suggested definitions:

A proposition is true to the extent to which it corresponds to a state of affairs.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Feel free to use your own definitions of those words, but please make clear what your own definitions are.

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

Something thinks, therefore something exists. Everything else could be systems that only exist within that somethings capacity to think. Something is known to be true in a system if it is analytically proven within the rules of that system. Something is accepted as true if it reliable within that system. Reliability is best measured through statistics.

True means that it corresponds to the reality of the system.

Objections?

 

[LukeS]

Objection: analytically true sounds mathematical. But its true that I am sitting at a computer, so unless "experience is an axiom" there are other forms of truth. I treat experience as a posit from which claims can be derived.

 

[Curious George]

Objection: analytically true sounds mathematical. But its true that I am sitting at a computer, so unless "experience is an axiom" there are other forms of truth. I treat experience as a posit from which claims can be derived.

Logic is axiomatic. Analytically true in contrast with synthetically true.

 

[blü 2]

what constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

I'd say the basic meaning of 'truth' is conformity with reality. So a plain accurate statement about reality, which does not mislead by omission, is true.

Is whether or not something "feels true" to us a reliable guide to whether or not it actually is true?

This mostly works in practice, but it's not a true test,

Can we trust authorities, such as a person, tradition, or scripture, to tell us whether something is true?

Since we have to trust authorities a lot of the time ─ journalists, doctors, scientists, parents, the butcher ─ we get to have greater or lesser faith in particular ones through experience (or, sometimes, through our faith in another authority ─ Bloggs is a good dentist, Rambo Warrior is a cert in the fifth &c.)

Are the sciences our most reliable guides to truths?

If we want accurate statements about matters within the scientific domain ─ physics, biochemistry, geology, cosmology, genetics, materials, much of medicine, on and on ─ then yes, we're far more likely to get an accurate statement about reality from a relevant scientist than from anyone else.

A proposition is true to the extent to which it corresponds to a state of affairs.

'State of affairs' is a term of art in philosophy (metaphysics). It corresponds pretty much with 'fact' or 'factual situation'. So yes, I can live with that.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Hmm. No, strike 'indefeasible' ─ that's much too rigorous. Do we know something if we genuinely believe on reasonable grounds that something is the case? I guess so, but I would have thought I know a lot more things than I know on reasonable grounds. Maybe this has a context I'm missing.

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

GIGO, I guess.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I define truth as knowledge based on observation. This is observation is a culmination of fact, of scientific theory, and of personal experience.

For me, there are at least two types of truths:

• Personal (Relative) truths - Knowledge based on personal observation
• Universal (Absolute) Truth - Knowledge based on observation agreed upon by all consciousness

To answer the question in the OP, how do we know if something is true, the "something" should meet all criteria based of knowledge based on the observation defined above. With regard to defeasiblility, truth should contain the flexibility to embrace new knowledge as it is discovered in order to remain true.

I'm limited for time ATM, as I am getting out the door to head for work, but felt compelled to reply to this thread. Here are a couple of my favorite articles that go deeper into truth, both what truth is and how truth is determined:

What Is Truth? - Theosophical Society in America

My Truth, Your Truth, or THE Truth?

 

[Altfish]

To go back to the question...

How Do We Know Something is True?


...Trump calls it Fake News.

 

[BSM1]

How do we know that something, such as a claim, proposition, or assertion, is true? Put differently, what constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

Is whether or not something "feels true" to us a reliable guide to whether or not it actually is true?

Can we trust authorities, such as a person, tradition, or scripture, to tell us whether something is true?

Are the sciences our most reliable guides to truths?




For those of us who enjoy saying things like, "It depends on what you mean by 'truth'.", or "It depends on what you mean by 'to know'.", here two suggested definitions:

A proposition is true to the extent to which it corresponds to a state of affairs.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Feel free to use your own definitions of those words, but please make clear what your own definitions are.

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

Maybe you should differentiate between truth and fact. Truth is relative; therefore truth is fluid and subjective. Fact is provable (as far as our senses allow) and therefore fact is concrete and objective. All discussions on truth will usually dissolve into mental arm wrestling. Fact, on the other hand, can be discussed on it's merits.

 

[blü 2]

Maybe you should differentiate between truth and fact. Truth is relative; therefore truth is fluid and subjective. Fact is provable (as far as our senses allow) and therefore fact is concrete and objective. All discussions on truth will usually dissolve into mental arm wrestling. Fact, on the other hand, can be discussed on it's merits.

I'd have thought defining truth as conformity with reality (#7) covered that.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Truth is the closest approximation that can be reached.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Maybe you should differentiate between truth and fact. Truth is relative; therefore truth is fluid and subjective. Fact is provable (as far as our senses allow) and therefore fact is concrete and objective. All discussions on truth will usually dissolve into mental arm wrestling. Fact, on the other hand, can be discussed on it's merits.

"Truth is relative; therefore truth is fluid and subjective."

Tell that to the brick wall right before you try to run through it.

 

[Erebus]

To me, truth is a fairly malleable concept and can be understood in many different ways. To keep things simple, I'll broadly split it into objective truth and subjective truth.

Objective truth requires that you accept a couple of axioms before you can take it further. Firstly, that a world exists independent of one's perception of it. Secondly, that other people also exist and can observe the objective world in a roughly similar manner to oneself. That might sound like a lot of waffling for little gain but I feel it's important when discussing objective truth to accept a couple of basic axioms lest we turn out to be a brain in a jar

Determining objective truth is something for which I feel that the scientific method is a fantastic tool. Our individual perceptions of the objective world can be flawed and the scientific method allows for at least a degree of ironing out those flaws. By attempting to observe the objective world in such a way as to remove as much subjectivity from it as possible gives us a very good foundation for saying, to the best of our knowledge, "This is the case."
It may not be perfect but it's definitely useful. I feel that a certain degree of pragmatism is wise and so I don't see the limitations of science as any reason to abandon it.

Next up would be subjective truth and here's where things get complicated. By subjective truth I'm referring not only to one's opinions but also to how we perceive and analyse the objective world as individuals. As useful as the scientific method may be, it's impractical to apply it on an individual basis in daily life. Instead, we have to muddle through as best we can, observing and interacting with the objective world through our own subjective lens. Everything that I see, think and experience in an average day is filtered through my mind and so is subject to my own biases, flaws, previous experiences and subconscious thought processes.

In effect, subjective truth is a maelstrom of biological limitations (I don't smell the world as a dog does for example) subconscious biases, both fleeting and in depth conscious thought and simple instinct. I would argue that even for the most rigorous and obsessive person, subjective truth isn't so much arrived at as it is stumbled upon.


Now I'll mention that I'm not exactly well versed in philosophy. What I've written above is my best attempt at putting my thoughts on the matter into words and some of my terminology may well be off. Hopefully it's possible to at least get the gist of what I'm going for with this rambling mass!

 

[Stevicus]

How do we know that something, such as a claim, proposition, or assertion, is true? Put differently, what constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

Is whether or not something "feels true" to us a reliable guide to whether or not it actually is true?

Can we trust authorities, such as a person, tradition, or scripture, to tell us whether something is true?

Are the sciences our most reliable guides to truths?




For those of us who enjoy saying things like, "It depends on what you mean by 'truth'.", or "It depends on what you mean by 'to know'.", here two suggested definitions:

A proposition is true to the extent to which it corresponds to a state of affairs.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Feel free to use your own definitions of those words, but please make clear what your own definitions are.

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

The only thing that I can be reasonably certain of is anything I see or experience first-hand. And even then, there may be an element of doubt since even my own memories are fallible.

 

[Thief]

How do we know that something, such as a claim, proposition, or assertion, is true? Put differently, what constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

Is whether or not something "feels true" to us a reliable guide to whether or not it actually is true?

Can we trust authorities, such as a person, tradition, or scripture, to tell us whether something is true?

Are the sciences our most reliable guides to truths?




For those of us who enjoy saying things like, "It depends on what you mean by 'truth'.", or "It depends on what you mean by 'to know'.", here two suggested definitions:

A proposition is true to the extent to which it corresponds to a state of affairs.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Feel free to use your own definitions of those words, but please make clear what your own definitions are.

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

some truths are self evident...such as....
in the scheme of a linear existence.....
Someone had to be First

the counter to that is typically a lame.......why does someone have to be first?
(I'm like.....really?)

again .....in the scheme of linear existence....
ALL of motion had a beginning
from a singular starting point
and the denial is all over the place....

but, logic has a relationship to the truth
it should have been logic that took you there

 

[WalterTrull]

How do we know that something, such as a claim, proposition, or assertion, is true? Put differently, what constitutes evidence for a truth claim?

There’s really only one truth. Since we are, I suppose that’s manifest

The Quantum guys are telling us that reality is what you make of it.

Knowledge is indefeasible justified true belief.

Whoa! I love it when I have to look something up.

So again, I guess there’s only one thing we can know. The rest is a bunch of good books. Ever notice how great we are at building scenarios?

BONUS QUESTION: What, if anything, is the relationship of logic to truth?

Logic is how we rationalize truth.

 

[jonathan180iq]

For practical purposes, truth is little more than something we've just REALLY convinced ourselves of.

But there are multiple ways to look at it...

Truth, with a capital "T", reflects objective reality - unquestionable and absolute.
Truth with a minor "t" reflects subjective reality - malleable, more common, probably more useful.

Ascertaining capital "T"s is really big deal and doesn't happen all that often, if at all. This is hashed out through collective reasoning and study over long periods of time.
Minor "T"s... Well, we make those up on the daily as a necessity of progressing through our lives without going insane.

 

[PureX]

Something thinks, therefore something exists. Everything else could be systems that only exist within that somethings capacity to think. Something is known to be true in a system if it is analytically proven within the rules of that system. Something is accepted as true if it reliable within that system. Reliability is best measured through statistics.

True means that it corresponds to the reality of the system.

Then the only way to determine the truth is to apply the theory of it to the "system", and see if it "corresponds". How do we know if it corresponds? By whether or not it "works" within the system's parameters to achieve a functional goal. Truth for we humans is just functional actuality: i.e., "factuality".

 

[BSM1]

"Truth is relative; therefore truth is fluid and subjective."

Tell that to the brick wall right before you try to run through it.

Nice try, but a brick wall is fact (provable). Truth is believing you can run through the brick wall until truth collides with fact. Next?