Outside of certain very specific uses in the fields of logic and mathematics, has the concept of "truth" been outdated or superseded by the notion of model dependent realism? Why, to what extent, or why not?
-
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!
Is Truth soooo 2013?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
So we can never really know reality-as-it-is-in-itself, but can only relate to it through the intermediary of models?
This relates to the instrumentalist approach to science in general. Models are only useful in so far as they offer meaningful explanations and accurate predictions for situations rather than how accurately they describe objective reality. Maybe there is no hope for discovering an essentially true reality.
This relates to the instrumentalist approach to science in general. Models are only useful in so far as they offer meaningful explanations and accurate predictions for situations rather than how accurately they describe objective reality. Maybe there is no hope for discovering an essentially true reality.
Last edited:
Good point.
True? That word "true" comes with a lot of baggage, and some meanings of that word are clearly nonsensical.
I would extend it to logic and mathematics as well. Truth for scientific pursuits or logical pursuits is as valuable as perfect for said pursuits. Its only a truth untill it isn't.
Could truth just be a compliment paid to sentences that are seen to be paying their own way as some neo-pragmatists claim?
Interesting question.
From a scientific and epistemological sense, truth's importance has certainly not changed.
From a popular perception one, it well may have, in two somewhat contradictory ways.
It has become fashionable to perceive truth as a political and social construct, which is of course an abuse of the concept and a result of the current trends towards voluntary alienation as a "defense" or coping mechanism.
On the other hand, there has also been a bit of a healthy deattachment from overly simplistic, context-deprived perceptions.
Both trends are IMO expressions of a growing pain of sorts. It is often no longer possible to deal with many of our demands without a bit more of epistemological ambition than was demanded in decades past, yet many people simply do not find it on them to deal with that need.
From a scientific and epistemological sense, truth's importance has certainly not changed.
From a popular perception one, it well may have, in two somewhat contradictory ways.
It has become fashionable to perceive truth as a political and social construct, which is of course an abuse of the concept and a result of the current trends towards voluntary alienation as a "defense" or coping mechanism.
On the other hand, there has also been a bit of a healthy deattachment from overly simplistic, context-deprived perceptions.
Both trends are IMO expressions of a growing pain of sorts. It is often no longer possible to deal with many of our demands without a bit more of epistemological ambition than was demanded in decades past, yet many people simply do not find it on them to deal with that need.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Loosely speaking ive always approached the topic of truth with a certain sobriety. That before even beginning, one requires a process of transmitting a reality to an observer or experiencer for the word to have any meaning or any domain in which to be used. You cant just have 'Truth' existing on its own, as it begs the question.
By that very fact alone truth is only meaningfully talked about in terms of models and representations. It seems to generally denote the degree of concordance of certain experiential phenomenon with an already know, or practical reality, where such a reality is itself of course built up of concordant models in much the same way.
Whilst there may be a common and underlying reality, it itself will never be known in anyway other than through experience, and our efforts to organise, analyse and make sense of all these pieces and clues we get are in efforts to move closer to the vanishing point we call truth.
Truth can represents how well the pieces of the jigsaw fit in the mind of the receiver. Deciding if the jigsaw puzzle is in-fact broken to begin with raises further, quite interesting questions
I'm not familiar with that line of thought.
As for the pragmatic theories of truth in general, I'd think negative pragmatism probably is the most compatible with model-dependent realism.
Actually, Luis, I'm of the impression that not that many scientists -- especially physicists -- are happy with the concept of "truth".
I agree with you that the old, naive Truth = Reality is out, though.
You mean, what doesn't work?
Still feel like we can start on the level of the perceivable situation and acknowledge certain facts, like that I just typed this sentence for example.
What are facts according to model-dependent realism?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Truth hasn't been fashionable for years. Our intelligence has done us in.
As I understand it, negative pragmatism is the notion that what works might or might not be true, but what fails to work cannot be true.
There would seem to be some similarity between the pragmatic "what works" and model-dependent realism's "accurate predictions".
Is it true that model-dependent realism has superceded the notion of truth? Therein lies your answer.
Depends on what you mean by "truth".
Offhand, I suppose "facts" would be situations that can be reliably predicted. But I'd have to look more into that.
Or Rupert Murdock.
So what works might or might not be true?
Well, that gets us half the way there, at least.
Could some things that work really be true then?
In other words, it's surprising how well we can get by without categorizing facts and just associating data freely.
According to the pragmatic theory of truth, yes. But model-dependent realism is similar to the pragmatic theory only in some ways. And, so far as I know, model-dependent realism denies the possibility of being absolutely certain about anything. Hence, it might be meaningless to talk about "what's really true".