How Do We Know Something is True?

[blü 2]

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

That might translate as, 'I think the stories about Jesus are true'. (Really? Which stories, exactly?),

Or, 'I think what Jesus said is true'. (But an opinion on morals isn't a statement about reality. And a statement about the supernatural isn't a statement about reality either. A statement has to be about reality before it can be true. So at best that's some sort of analogy),

Maybe it actually means, 'Wouldn't it be nice if the things I've been told about Jesus were accurate statements about reality.'

 

[Deidre]

That might translate as, 'I think the stories about Jesus are true'. (Really? Which stories, exactly?),

Or, 'I think what Jesus said is true'. (But an opinion on morals isn't a statement about reality. And a statement about the supernatural isn't a statement about reality> A statement has to be about reality before it can be true. So at best that's some sort of analogy),

Faith and religion are very much realities to many people. I find value in different faiths, so it is real to me, if that makes sense. But, proving one's faith to another using actual facts that can be tested, and re-tested...that would be harder, if not impossible, and therefore might not stand up to the 'Truth' litmus test. (with a capital T)

 

[PureX]

How so? I read his question as rhetorical.*

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

We don't have to know everything to be certain that we don't know everything. We just have to be certain that we don't know something. But we would have to know everything to know anything at all, for certain. One either understands and accepts this, or they don't.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If you mean that, while the fact is true the statement about the fact is also true, I totally agree. But there is no relation of causation between them (one doesn't "make" the other). Rather, the fact can be seen through the statement about the fact (provided the statement is clear).

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.

Truth-bearers are those statements that are capable of being judged true or false. Not all statements are truth-bearers, while all facts are truth-bearers.

 

[Curious George]

We don't have to know everything to be certain that we don't know everything. We just have to be certain that we don't know something. But we would have to know everything to know anything at all, for certain. One either understands and accepts this, or they don't.

Yet we would have to know something before we could know thow that we don't know anything.

And knowing something does not necessitate knowing everything.

Cheers

 

[blü 2]

Truth-bearers are those statements that are capable of being judged true or false. Not all statements are truth-bearers, while all facts are truth-bearers.

I agree. A fact can readily be a truthmaker. Indeed I can't think of any other kind of truthmaker. But 'true' isn't a quality of the fact, rather a quality of the statement made true.

 

[blü 2]

Faith and religion are very much realities to many people. I find value in different faiths, so it is real to me, if that makes sense. But, proving one's faith to another using actual facts that can be tested, and re-tested...that would be harder, if not impossible, and therefore might not stand up to the 'Truth' litmus test. (with a capital T)

Of course, there's an alternative definition of 'truth' which makes it a synonym for the orthodoxy of your religion. Which would mean there are at least as many conflicting 'truths' as religions. Seems like self-serving abuse of a good word to me, but there it is.

 

[Deidre]

Of course, there's an alternative definition of 'truth' which makes it a synonym for the orthodoxy of your religion. Which would mean there are at least as many conflicting 'truths' as religions. Seems like self-serving abuse of a good word to me, but there it is.

Not sure if it's an alternative definition or merely there are subjective vs objective truths. When people expect everyone to accept subjective truths as Truth, that's when things go awry.

 

[blü 2]

Not sure if it's an alternative definition or merely there are subjective vs objective truths. When people expect everyone to accept subjective truths as Truth, that's when things go awry.

Yup.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. A fact can readily be a truthmaker. Indeed I can't think of any other kind of truthmaker. But 'true' isn't a quality of the fact, rather a quality of the statement made true.

Truth-bearers are not truth-makers.

 

[blü 2]

Truth-bearers are not truth-makers.

You're right. Sorry, my error.

You said, Not all statements are truth-bearers, while all facts are truth-bearers.

How can a fact be either true or false?

If it's false, it's not a fact.

If it's a fact, then in my view it's not of itself true, but a truthmaker of statements about it.

 

[Curious George]

You're right. Sorry, my error.

You said, Not all statements are truth-bearers, while all facts are truth-bearers.

How can a fact be either true or false?

If it's false, it's not a fact.

If it's a fact, then in my view it's not of itself true, but a truthmaker of statements about it.

If it is false it bears no truth. You guys are saying the same thing.

 

[blü 2]

If it is false it bears no truth.

But if it's not a fact then it's not what we're talking about.

And if it is a fact, then it doesn't have the quality true. The accurate statement about it has that quality.

 

[Curious George]

But if it's not a fact then it's not what we're talking about.

And if it is a fact, then it doesn't have the quality true. The accurate statement about it has that quality.

In other words truth bearers cannot be false.

 

[blü 2]

In other words truth bearers cannot be false.

I didn't say facts were truthbearers. They're truthmakers. The statement / truthbearer can be true or false. Lack of correspondence with the fact makes the statement / truthbearer false. Correspondence with it makes the statement / truthbearer true. The fact is not 'true'. It's necessary and sufficient that it's a fact.

 

[Curious George]

I didn't say facts were truthbearers. They're truthmakers. The statement / truthbearer can be true or false. Lack of correspondence with the fact makes the statement / truthbearer false. Correspondence with it makes the statement / truthbearer true. The fact is not 'true'. It's necessary and sufficient that it's a fact.

it is necessary and sufficient because facts are true.

 

[Curious George]

I thought that she was suggesting that facts were a particular type of truth bearer.

My mistake.

 

[blü 2]

it is necessary and sufficient because facts are true.

No, the accurate statement about the fact is true.

Otherwise 'truth' has two meanings.

 

[Curious George]

No, the accurate statement about the fact is true.

Otherwise 'truth' has two meanings.

How so? If we are working with the idea that truth is this basic property? The statement about the fact are comparable in that respect, just as a red fire truck and a red apple are compatable in their redness.

 

[blü 2]

How so?

Truth1 would be a quality of accurate statements.

Truth2 would be a quality of facts.

The statement about the fact are comparable in that respect, just as a red fire truck and a red apple are compatable in their redness.

But as I see it, the fact is the truthmaker for the truthbearer. Nothing is the truthmaker for the fact.

Whereas the truck and the apple don't need a redmaker.