How Do We Know Something is True?

[Sunstone]

"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.

I have a feeling that what you are saying could fascinate me if only I understood it, Patty, but at this point my brain is reeling from the effort to understand what you're saying. I suspect I now know how my two ex-wives felt when I lectured them for hours on their wedding nights. But how could I have known beforehand that my lectures on "The Epistemology of Carnal Knowledge" would be so confusing to both of them? I guess I'm just going to have to step down, and give up on trying to figure out what you mean -- at least for now. Thanks, though, for an interesting discussion, even if I didn't understand it all.

 

[Curious George]

I have a feeling that what you are saying could fascinate me if only I understood it, Patty, but at this point my brain is reeling from the effort to understand what you're saying. I suspect I now know how my two ex-wives felt when I lectured them for hours on their wedding nights. But how could I have known beforehand that my lectures on "The Epistemology of Carnal Knowledge" would be so confusing to both of them? I guess I'm just going to have to step down, and give up on trying to figure out what you mean -- at least for now. Thanks, though, for an interesting discussion, even if I didn't understand it all.

I believe she is describing truth as a property and fact as an instance that has truth as a property, if that helps you.

 

[Sunstone]

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".

PureX, it seems to me that your ideas are very similar to the Coherence Theory of Truth, or some variation thereof. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the theory?

 

[Willamena]

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?

It would be a demonstration of the fact. You may spin it as a test of the truth of the proposition, but what is the price of failing such a test?

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?

It could. But if the map was correct (the statement properly worded), it differs mainly a priori. The intent of the statement is to put the world into words, symbols, as the map puts the terrain into symbols. The intent of reading the map is to see past or through the symbols to understand the terrain. The terrain is the thing, not the map. The fact (that I am sitting on my couch) is the true statement.

 

[Willamena]

I believe she is describing truth as a property and fact as an instance that has truth as a property, if that helps you.

If a property is true then the abstract that I am describing cannot be a property, which is why I point to it as a quality. It informs properties as much as any other part of the world.

 

[Curious George]

If a property is true then the abstract that I am describing cannot be a property, which is why I point to it as a quality. It informs properties as much as any other part of the world.

If a quality is true then the abstract that you are describing cannot be a quality, which is why I suggested property. Truth informs qualities as much as any other part of the world. Lol. Would you have preferred I use trope?

 

[Sunstone]

No. Unfortunately propositions can be untruths to the extent that they correspond to a state of affairs.

Can you please explain your reasoning here?

 

[blü 2]

If a property is true then the abstract that I am describing cannot be a property, which is why I point to it as a quality. It informs properties as much as any other part of the world.

What does If a property is true mean? That X possesses the property 'truth'?

How could we tell?

 

[Sunstone]

Basically I meant to say that the claim can be evaluated as being true in that case.

Ah, that makes sense to me now! Thank you so much!

 

[oldbadger]

Can you please explain your reasoning here?

Yes, by reversing the sentence of another member I really should have offered some explanation.

'Unfortunately propositions can be untruths to the extent that they correspond to a state of affairs.'

Propositions corresponding to a state of affairs, or connected to a state of affairs, can be agenda driven. And so we cannot auto-trust propositions.

Even the most simple propositions can be untrue. Take the proposition 'One is one.' A friend of ours can make a large coin inside any wine glass dissappear. So he's a member of the magic circle (!) but after many demonstrations I still cannot believe my eyes.

 

[Curious George]

What does If a property is true mean? That X possesses the property 'truth'?

How could we tell?

Though it seems "quality" is the preferred word choice, if something had a property(quality) of truth it would contrast with something that had the property(quality)of untruth. For instance you can have a belief that is true or untrue. A fact would necessarily have a quality of truth but as we see other things can be true or untrue. Consider, it could be a fact that you left the stove on and you could believe you left the stove on. If it was a fact that you left the stove on it would not change that your belief is still a belief and differentiated from the fact despite both the fact being true and the belief being true: Both have the property (quality) of truth but only one is a fact.
So, since something can have the property of truth and not be a fact, we can not say that all instances of truth are facts. We can however still say that all facts have the property of truth.

All facts have the quality of truth
A belief has the quality of truth if and only if that which is believed is a fact.

I think that is how she is distinguishing fact and truth

 

[PureX]

PureX, it seems to me that your ideas are very similar to the Coherence Theory of Truth, or some variation thereof. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the theory?

No, but the title sounds about right. That truth, from the human perspective, is what "fits the facts". That is it's what functions as true within the limited conceptualized 'reality' in which we each live.

 

[PureX]

I was pointing out a self contradictory claim.

No, you were inventing a contradiction by applying an absolute criteria to a relative reality.

I think it is an important concept.

I can't help you with that.

 

[Willamena]

If a quality is true then the abstract that you are describing cannot be a quality, which is why I suggested property. Truth informs qualities as much as any other part of the world. Lol. Would you have preferred I use trope?

Right. It cannot be properly described in terms other than itself, because truth informs the whole world that we've described.

 

[Willamena]

What does If a property is true mean? That X possesses the property 'truth'?

How could we tell?

That there are properties for X to possess.

 

[Curious George]

No, you were inventing a contradiction by applying an absolute criteria to a relative reality.
I can't help you with that.

Sure thing, u agree you agree that your statement isn't absolutely true. Nor is your statement about absolutes. Cheers.

 

[Willamena]

Though it seems "quality" is the preferred word choice, if something had a property(quality) of truth it would contrast with something that had the property(quality)of untruth. For instance you can have a belief that is true or untrue. A fact would necessarily have a quality of truth but as we see other things can be true or untrue. Consider, it could be a fact that you left the stove on and you could believe you left the stove on. If it was a fact that you left the stove on it would not change that your belief is still a belief and differentiated from the fact despite both the fact being true and the belief being true: Both have the property (quality) of truth but only one is a fact.
So, since something can have the property of truth and not be a fact, we can not say that all instances of truth are facts. We can however still say that all facts have the property of truth.

All facts have the quality of truth
A belief has the quality of truth if and only if that which is believed is a fact.

I think that is how she is distinguishing fact and truth

Thank you.

 

[Willamena]

The fact that you asked, shows you that it is.

How so? I read his question as rhetorical.*

*Intended to get you to apply your own criteria to what you had just said.

 

[blü 2]

something can have the property of truth and not be a fact

A belief, a statement is true because it conforms with reality, with its subject state of affairs, the fact. The fact is what makes the statement true.

Thus, thinking out loud, I'd say 'true' is a quality of the statement, but not of the fact. The fact is prior to the trueness, and causes it. I'm trying to think of an analogy. Try this: if I take a photo of you, it should be your likeness; but you are not your likeness; you are what gives the quality of likeness to the photo.

 

[Deidre]

*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.

How about ''Jesus is my truth.'' Is the issue when theists tell you that he is 'the Truth?'