How Do We Know Something is True?

[Jeremiahcp]

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?

Man, you are so predicable, as I was typing my post out I knew this would be the direction you would take.

"Truth is believing you can run through the brick wall "

If the fact is that you are going to collide with it, then it was not true in the first place. Are you just pretending that people can't be wrong? I mean if you are wrong then do you have the truth? Or do you have a belief that is not true?

 

[BSM1]

Man, you are so predicable, as I was typing my post out I knew this would be the direction you would take.

"Truth is believing you can run through the brick wall "

If the fact is that you are going to collide with it, then it was not true in the first place. Are you just pretending that people can't be wrong? I mean if you are wrong then do you have the truth? Or do you have a belief that is not true?

Exactly! Your truth was that you could run through a brick wall. Your truth changed as soon as it met the fact that, in this dimension, you could not run through a solid object. Now your truth is that you cannot run through a brick wall. If, in the future, we find a way to manipulate molecules and molecular structure so that solid object can be passed through, then truth will change again. This is not rocket surgery.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Exactly! Your truth was that you could run through a brick wall. Your truth changed as soon as it met the fact that, in this dimension, you could not run through a solid object. Now your truth is that you cannot run through a brick wall. If, in the future, we find a way to manipulate molecules and molecular structure so that solid object can be passed through, then truth will change again. This is not rocket surgery.

The truth was that you could never run though the wall no matter how much you believed it to be true. Your entire notion if "truth" is meaningless, and since I believe that, by your standards it must be "true"; if I believe all facts are wrong that must also be "true". All you did was strip all value from the word truth so that you can pretend you are right. It is senseless and a worthless waste of time.

 

[WalterTrull]

Man, where's a good brick wall when you need one.

 

[Nous]

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

Since we get more money by answering bonus questions, I'll point out that the SEP has a whole interesting article on Logical Truth:

On any view, logic has as one of its goals to characterize (and give us practical means to tell apart) a peculiar set of truths, the logical truths, of which the following English sentences are paradigmatic examples:

• (1)If death is bad only if life is good, and death is bad, then life is good.
• (2)If no desire is voluntary and some beliefs are desires, then some beliefs are not voluntary.
• (3)If Drasha is a cat and all cats are mysterious, then Drasha is mysterious.

As it turns out, it is very hard to think of universally accepted ideas about what the generic properties of logical truths are or should be. A widespread, perhaps universally accepted idea is that part of what distinguishes logical truths from other kinds of truths is that logical truths have a yet to be fully understood modal force. It is typical to hold that, in some sense or senses of “could”, a logical truth could not be false or, alternatively, that in some sense or senses of “must”, a logical truth must be true. But there is little if any agreement about how the relevant modality should be understood.

Another widespread idea is that part of what distinguishes logical truths is that they are in some sense yet to be fully understood “formal”. That a logical truth is formal implies at the very least that all the sentences which are appropriate replacement instances of its logical form are logical truths too.

[. . . ]

A remarkable fact about logical truth is that many have thought it plausible that the set of logical truths of certain rich formalized languages is characterizable in terms of concepts of standard mathematics. In particular, on some views the set of logical truths of a language of that kind is always the set of sentences of the language derivable in a certain calculus. On other, more widespread views, the set of logical truths of a language of that kind can be identified with the set of sentences that are valid across a certain range of mathematical interpretations (where validity is something related to but different from the condition that all the sentences that are replacement instances of its form be true too; see below, section 2.3). One main achievement of early mathematical logic was precisely to show how to characterize notions of derivability and validity in terms of concepts of standard mathematics.
​

Logical Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[BSM1]

The truth was that you could never run though the wall no matter how much you believed it to be true. Your entire notion if "truth" is meaningless, and since I believe that, by your standards it must be "true"; if I believe all facts are wrong that must also be "true". All you did was strip all value from the word truth so that you can pretend you are right. It is senseless and a worthless waste of time.

You're dog paddling here. If you say, "I can run through that brick wall", then, to you, that's the truth. When you find out that you cannot run through that brick you have discovered fact. If you still believe that you can run through that brick wall while being presented with irrefutable fact then your truth hasn't changed. If you run into that brick wall enough times that it finally collapses and you run "through" it, then you have validated your truth without changing fact.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You're dog paddling here. If you say, "I can run through that brick wall", then, to you, that's the truth. When you find out that you cannot run through that brick you have discovered fact. If you still believe that you can run through that brick wall while being presented with irrefutable fact then your truth hasn't changed. If you run into that brick wall enough times that it finally collapses and you run "through" it, then you have validated your truth without changing fact.

TL;DR

I believe you are completely wrong in everything you say, nothing you think or believe is true, times infinity. I win forever, as since I believe it, then it all must be true.

 

[SalixIncendium]

All discussions on truth will usually dissolve into mental arm wrestling. Fact, on the other hand, can be discussed on it's merits.

Discussions involving personal truths devolve to mental arm wrestling. Discussions on Universal Truths not so much.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Truth is the closest approximation that can be reached.

By this statement, fact cannot be truth.

 

[Curious George]

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".

Rhat is synthetic truth. I believe I discussed that. I don't think you can define truth as functuinal actuality-rather such a phrase qualifies truth.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

By this statement, fact cannot be truth.

Facts are strong evidence of truth, they themselves, however, are not truth.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Facts are strong evidence of truth, they themselves, however, are not truth.

Explain

 

[Thief]

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.

are you skipping over the word.....assumption.....
on purpose?

 

[Thief]

Facts are strong evidence of truth, they themselves, however, are not truth.

denying a fact would be a lie

 

[PureX]

Rhat is synthetic truth. I believe I discussed that. I don't think you can define truth as functuinal actuality-rather such a phrase qualifies truth.

Truth is an ideal, like infinity, or perfection; that we can never actually experience. And the only way we have of seeking qualifying it is through relative functionality (via experience).

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Explain

Can what is true be untrue? Can facts be untrue?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can what is true be untrue? Can facts be untrue?

Facts...themselves...are not truth.

Evidently.

 

[Sunstone]

Truth is an ideal, like infinity, or perfection; that we can never actually experience. And the only way we have of seeking qualifying it is through relative functionality (via experience).

If truth is an ideal, etc., then how are you defining "truth"? I ask out of curiosity and not to debate.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Evidently.

So what, I need to spell it out for you?

What is true cannot be untrue, yet facts have been proven untrue many times in the past, so they are not truth. Facts are evidence of truth, very creditable and reliable evidence of truth.

 

[Sunstone]

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

I think you're off to a good start, but it's unclear to me why you said "knowable", rather than something along the lines of "...then the claim is true"?