That's a toughie. I suppose I would say I know everything I can accurately remember. As far as "knowledge" is concerned, hmm...
I might have a different answer in the morning. All I can say right now is: "Knowledge is good."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Do We Know Something is True?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That's a toughie. I suppose I would say I know everything I can accurately remember. As far as "knowledge" is concerned, hmm...
I might have a different answer in the morning. All I can say right now is: "Knowledge is good."
I was using your words.
That's not what I said. I said it's irrational to kill for one's beliefs. As in ISIS, etc. I don't understand how you're meaning it? Sorry.
Apologies. I misread.
No worries.
I think it's simply the case that with knowledge there are no absolutes, no perfect right, no perfect wrong.
And any example of knowledge (in the sense we're talking about) seems to me to be the knowledge of person X, or person ψ, or person 7344, not a pure abstract datum to be found in Platoland.
I'd say, to be confident that one's examples of knowledge are accurate statements about reality ─ are true. How well based that confidence is, depends not least on how objective you're trying to be. The best tool we have for maximizing objectivity is reasoned enquiry, including its brawny child scientific method.
That's what we invented negation for.
If it's a fact that the sun does not circle the earth, it is also true that the sun does not circle the earth.
Fact is a proposition that is demonstrably true, such as something I can present to you for observation.
Truth informs facts. Synonymous in some contexts, but not all.
Just as I think 'true' means 'accurately corresponding with reality', I think a 'fact' is the accurate description of a state of affairs. Which is much along the lines you've said.
So, not all true statements are statements about states of affairs? I'd have to think about that. Do you have an example handy?
Truth informs facts, beliefs, thoughts, statements, propositions... it is not entirely synonymous with facts.
My dear beloved Deidre,
Interesting thoughts! I would like to ask some questions for clarification, if that's alright.
But first -- so you know where my questions are coming from -- I should probably first state that I myself use the word "rational" to mean "based on empirical fact and/or logical reasoning". So far as I can see, empirical fact and logical reasoning are "open to public verification" in the sense that, almost anyone can under the right circumstances verify those things.
For instance, suppose you just happen to have a giant, 20 foot tall, ghastly pink statue of me in your backyard that you bought from one of my ex-wives who herself had it commissioned in order to remind her of how ugly I am. The fact that you can see the statue means you can empirically verify that it exists. But so can I. I too can empirically verify that the statue exists if I too can see it. That's what I mean by "open to public verification". If something is an empirical fact, then just about anyone can empirically verify it.
And the same goes true for logical reasoning. Just about anyone can verify that, say, 2 + 3 = 5 is logically sound.
So that's the where I'm coming from when I use words like "rational" and "irrational". Now, when you say, "It's rational for David to believe it, just like it's rational for you to not believe it.", I must admit your use of the words "rational" and "irrational" don't seem to jive with mine. Because to me, anything that is rational is open to public verification, and so if it's rational for David to believe something, then it is also rational for me to believe it. If there's a ghastly pink statue of me in your backyard, and it is rational for David to believe there is, then it is rational for me to believe there is -- assuming both David and I have equal access to the very same means of verification.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT about to argue that you should use the words "rational" and "irrational" to mean the same things I mean by them. No! No! No! The very idea that I might suggest that shocks me! It would mean I was one of those loathsome semantic imperialists who blunder around trying to impose their favorite definitions of words on everyone else. And I just ain't no semantic imperialist. In my view, you have just as much right as do to use words however you see fit. I only beg that you make the meaning of your terms clear to me.
Having said all that, could you please tell me how you are defining "rational" such that David is rational to believe something that I am rational to not believe.
Moreover, I think I agree with you when you say, "to just believe in a higher power and to follow a religion for the sake of it, isn't necessarily inherently irrational", but my reasons for agreeing with you might not be the same reasons you have for saying what you said. I agree with you because I interpret "following a religion for the sake of it" to be different from "following a religion because you rationally believe its truth-claims are indeed true". For instance, I might "follow a religion for the sake of it" without being rationally convinced its truth-claims are true, but I am instead following it in the manner of "trying it on for size". So I ask could you explain what you mean by "to follow a religion for the sake of it isn't necessarily inherently irrational?
Last, please allow me to beg your forgiveness for making you wade through all my insufferable thoughts on this matter.
Yours in Faith in the Sacred Rejuvenating Beauty of Erotic Dancing Girls,
Phil
What's an example of a truth that isn't about facts?
If its relation to fact isn't the test of its truth, what would you say is the test?
I need a bit more help with this. Can you please explain to me what you mean by "truth informs facts"? Exactly what does it mean to say "a fact is informed"?
For some reason, I'm imagining this all being said out loud by Chef Gordon Ramsey.
I think what you're saying is...that it's irrational that theists try to rationalize their beliefs in say the same way non-theists have rational thoughts, say about science and math?
There is no test of truth, it's unnecessary. For instance, how would I "test the truth" that I'm sitting on my couch right now--more significantly, how would it differ from the test of the statement that I'm sitting on my couch right now? Other than not differing at all...
An example of a truth that isn't about facts is a truth that is about beliefs, thoughts, propositions, statements...
"Inform" presents an image intended to point to truth as an abstract quality, rather than as the fact, thought, statement, etc. Those are not themselves truth, though we often use it as shorthand for them.
When we are informed by facts (information), we have taken in, so to speak, this piece of the world, this "state of affairs," and made it a part of our mental bubble. It has become a part of who we are, forming us from within. We are in-formed.
Similarly, truth, as an abstract quality, informs each of the pieces that make up the world that is our mental bubble--it is made of all the true bits that have stuck around to be "the world," where the false bits got discarded.
Would my seeing you sitting on your couch be a "test" of whether or not the proposition that "You are sitting on your couch" is true?
Would not the state of affairs (e.g. the fact) that you are sitting on your couch right now differ from the statement or proposition that "You are sitting on your couch right now", in much the same way that a terrain differs from a map of it?
Surely it deserves a sound definition?
By glancing down, checking that it's a couch and not a hammock or bunk, and noting your sitting position. The facts correspond to your statement THEREFORE your statement is true.
It would address the question of the accuracy of your statement in a way that your statement on its own does not. So the difference is in the speaker's intention.
It may be true that X believes / thinks / proposes that Jesus was resurrected, because the fact may be that X believes / thinks / proposes exactly that. If X does not believe / think / propose that then the statement is untrue.
So that too would be true by a correspondence of statement with facts.
How does that differ from the other examples? Or is that not what you meant? in which case, what did you mean?
For some reason, I'm imagining this all being said out loud by Chef Gordon Ramsey.
I think what you're saying is...that it's irrational that theists try to rationalize their beliefs in say the same way non-theists have rational thoughts, say about science and math?
*GULP!* Um...I have totally confused you. *BLUSH!*
But Good News! You are now qualified and eligible to become a member of UPCP! The Union of People Confused by Phil. As a member of this large and rapidly growing organization....
Enough of that.
Actually, I think theists can have rational beliefs. What I myself don't think is that the same belief can be both rational and irrational. It can't be the case, for instance, that my belief, "Deidre is an American" is rational, while Stanley's belief, "Deidre is not an American" is also rational. Either one is rational and the other is not, or both are irrational. But not both are rational, because the two beliefs contradict each other. Again, David's belief that, "Jesus is the Truth", cannot be rational at the same time that my belief, "Jesus is not the Truth", is rational.
That's how I see it. My question is, how do you see it? And why? By the way, I'm not interested in debating you. I'm interested in understanding you.
Debates, in my opinion, are most often inimical to understanding.