Is there such a thing as truth?

[Hegel]

The similarity between science and religion as philosophies is that both groups state outright that there is a truth out there. There is a real world and we know how it works. Both groups quibble about what this truth is, and how to obtain it, but the basic ideology is the same.

It has been stated philosophically that the burden of proof lies at the feet of the one who is making a claim. If we desire to be true skeptics (certainly not everybodies goal) we must treat all ideas to be held untrue until proven true. This includes the above assertation of both the scientific and religious schools of thought.

This leads us to the simple question: can we prove the existence of truths? The only possible way to do this, is to find a truth, and show it to everyone. Science claims to have a way to figure this out, and religion claims that they already have it, but neither group actually proves that what they state is a truth.

As such, any attempt thats sole goal is to find a truth, which may of may not exist is really missing out on all of the possible non-truths that it pushes off as being less important since it is not-true. As such, until we can prove that truths exist, it is most likely better to treat all different ideas as ones of equal worth, even if the worth is in different areas.

While the theory that pink dragons that float in the sky is what causes rain may not have very many applications in the apperantly real world, we can't guarantee that this world which appears to be real is real, therefore the pink dragon theory should at least get recorded, along with all the other theories of rain, such as the water cycle theory, and all the other theological theories that have floated around the world for millenia.

This turned out to be a bit of a ramble, and I apologize in advance for that.

[Christian]

Science claims to have a way to figure this out,

Science does not claim to have a way to figure out the truth. The essence of science is that theories must be falsifiable, testable. Nothing should be above that.

That we conclude that because a theory has yet to be proven false (because it's predictability is 100% so far), it is true, is our jump, not science's.

[Dancing David]

Science only claims to have observational approximation of the observed 'physical' world. There is no truth ever.

Just as the scientist can not prove that the world exists the philosopher can only argue that it doesn't, they are both wrong. And both equaly true.

There is no truth ever, humans can only approximate the 'truth' whatever ill considered thought that may be.

Religion is just faith, only a few brave people are willing to put thier faith to the replication test.

Thanks Hegel, you just convinced me that monism and all it's 'mental' world stuff is still just semantics.
There is no truth, all thier is is human values that we place upon other things.

[Beleth]

There are no truths in science. There are just facts, and hypotheses. Hypotheses either contradict the facts, or don't contradict any facts yet.

The hypotheses which contradict the facts, such as the pink-dragon-causes-rain hypothesis, don't really need to be documented, as they are of no interest. Only hypotheses which aren't yet contradicted by facts are interesting.


But this is just a rewording of every other reply made here so far.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Beleth
There are no truths in science. There are just facts, and hypotheses. Hypotheses either contradict the facts, or don't contradict any facts yet.

The hypotheses which contradict the facts, such as the pink-dragon-causes-rain hypothesis, don't really need to be documented, as they are of no interest. Only hypotheses which aren't yet contradicted by facts are interesting.


But this is just a rewording of every other reply made here so far.

What I'm saying is that is over-simplifying a vast world of ideas. By stating that something that doesn't match up to the facts is false, in reality that is what you are saying, that means that there is an implied Truth to which they are failing to measure up against, in this case the real world. The point is that what is so great about facts, or the word of God, or the messages sent by the martians, that makes them the Truth and all other things to be discarded.

[hammegk]

no



;)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Science only claims to have observational approximation of the observed 'physical' world. There is no truth ever.

Just as the scientist can not prove that the world exists the philosopher can only argue that it doesn't, they are both wrong. And both equaly true.

There is no truth ever, humans can only approximate the 'truth' whatever ill considered thought that may be.

Religion is just faith, only a few brave people are willing to put thier faith to the replication test.

Thanks Hegel, you just convinced me that monism and all it's 'mental' world stuff is still just semantics.
There is no truth, all thier is is human values that we place upon other things.

I suspect there is truth, but it can not be proven or had, and if it is in fact had there would be no way of knowing if it was truth.

How can you disprove the existence of truth? If you don't believe in the existence of truth that is just faith. Not that there is anything wrong with faith.

-Elliot

[Dorian Gray]

I have unequivocal evidence of truth. No, wait, I lied.

There is such a thing as truth, but I don't think there is such a thing as absolute truth.

[Zero]

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about science claiming to have a lock on truth, and just jump to my answer. 'Truth' would depend on having ALL the information, I think(I don't have enough information to know that 100%;) )

Show me someone that knows everything, and even then it is quesswork, because he could weight his answers to questions based on bias. I don't think there is any way around the inherent limitations of humanity...


...but I could be wrong!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Hegel

Is there such a thing as truth? Absolutely! As a matter-of-fact, how can you have truth if it weren't derived from an absolute?

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ...

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Absolutely! As a matter-of-fact, how can you have truth if it weren't derived from an absolute?

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ...

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

I'm not sure if matter analogies can be extended to thought analogies.

I think you could possibly be on to something though. Not sure. Maybe.

Non-absolute truth may or may not be a piece of absolute truth, I don't think we have anyway of verifying that.

I will say that if absolute truth exists, then the truth we can ascertain is quite like the analogy you offer.

-Elliot

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Absolutely! As a matter-of-fact, how can you have truth if it weren't derived from an absolute?

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ...

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job). I see the difference as being that you just make things up that suit you, there's the difference. We don't know if there is 'absolute' anything, and that is as close to "truth" as we've got.

[Upchurch]

Way back in college, when I took various classes in philosophy, they differentiated between two kinds of truth. Truth (cap "T") was understood to be absolute truth and truth (lowercase "t") was understood to be relative truth. Well, "relative" isn't the right word, I don't think. truth is a lesser form of Truth that isn't necessarily true in all cases. There can be different kinds of truth, some of which can even be contradictory, but there can only be one Truth. For example, "That tree is beautiful" and "That tree is ugly" may both be true depending on who you ask, but neither is True.

truth can be shown to exist almost entirely by it's assertion, but Truth is a more difficult beast to identify, if it exists at all.

So, to answer your question, does truth exist? Yes. Does Truth exist? I'm not sure.

[c4ts]

What is truth?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Iacchus
...
You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job). You just blew your cover, socky.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hgc
You just blew your cover, socky. No no NO!! Iacchus is the hamster!!

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Zero
I see the difference as being that you just make things up that suit you, there's the difference. We don't know if there is 'absolute' anything, and that is as close to "truth" as we've got.

That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot

[RussDill]

Originally posted by elliotfc


That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot

You need to know the history of Iacchus to understand. Also, if you look at the analogy, all he is saying is that we can see, hear, feel, touch, smell things, so they are real. Anyone who says this is a philosophy forum is either trolling, or never studied any philosophy.


Edited to add: All of his analogies (included this one) relay things that could be much more clearly stated without the anology. He doesn't use analogies to try to relay a difficult to explain idea, he uses them to try to mystify his ideas.

[hgc]

Originally posted by elliotfc


That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot Spend a little time at it. You'll feel the mean spirit move in yourself too.

[Zero]

Originally posted by elliotfc


That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot I've known this goofball for awhile...this is a special case. :D

[T'ai Chi]

Science doesn't so much claim they have the way to truth, rather, I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Science doesn't so much claim they have the way to truth, rather, I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

Science is not a ' they ', it is a process..



Go look up ' axiom '... We will discuss it in class tomorrow...

[DVFinn]

So, how about a definition of "Truth" before debating whether it exists or not? It always helps to know the question before assembling the answer. Truth is one of those crazy words that can be spun a number of ways.

One definition I pulled from the web was:

"Conformity to fact or actuality"

If that definition is used than certainly truth exists. We may not know what it is in relation to every subject, but that doesn't stop it existing.

Try this:

"One plus one equals two"

Either this statement is true, or it is false. Either way truth exists, because if this isn't true than its inverse is.

The similarity between science and religion as philosophies is that both groups state outright that there is a truth out there.

While this is basically true the key difference is that Religion not only assumes that their are absolute truths, but also claims that those truths are known. Science has no such arrogant presumptions, but instead considers the spectrum of human knowledge and observation, when evaluated for reliability in accordance with scientific method as evidence for a particular truth or set of truths. When contradictory evidence is found then our ideas on what is true must be modified. The moment a person claims absolute and infallible knowledge they have ceased to act scientifically.

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

To make this quote more sensible replace the term "acknowledges" with "assumes" and append "Of course it's easy to hack something to pieces when it's already full of holes."

[Hegel]

Originally posted by DVFinn
So, how about a definition of "Truth" before debating whether it exists or not? It always helps to know the question before assembling the answer. Truth is opne of those crazy words that can be spun a number of ways.

One definition I pulled from the web was:

"Conformity to fact or actuality"

In that definition is used than certainly truth exists. We may not know what it is in relation to every subject, but that doesn't stop it existing.


That is if you assume that there is a fact or actuality to conform to. If there is not, then a Truth as such would not exist.

Try this:

"One plus one equals two"

Either this statement is true, or it is false. Either way truth exists, because if this isn't true than its inverse is.


This assumes that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. While science uses this assumption as one of its axioms, that doesn't nessecarily make it true.


While this is basically true the key difference is that Religion not only assumes that their are absolute truths, but also claims that those truths are known. Science has no such arrogant presumptions, but instead considers the spectrum of human knowledge and observation, when evaluated for reliability in accordence with scientific method as evidence for a particular truth or set of truths. When contradictory evidence is found then our ideas on what is true must be modified. The moment a person claims absolute and infallible knowledge they have ceased to act scientifically.


I completely agree about this definition of the difference between science and religion, however I'm complianing about the assumption of Truth at all, and the measuring of all ideas against what we think to be the Truth.

[/B]

[Igopogo]

Is there such a thing as truth? - Yes

Is there such as discovering the truth? - I don't think so.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Hegel
By stating that something that doesn't match up to the facts is false, in reality that is what you are saying, that means that there is an implied Truth to which they are failing to measure up against, in this case the real world.Yeah, pretty much.

The point is that what is so great about facts, or the word of God, or the messages sent by the martians, that makes them the Truth and all other things to be discarded. Facts aren't the Truth. They are, if you will, "symptoms" of the Truth. They are the effect the Truth has on our senses.

Einstein said it best when he compared the universe to an unopenable pocketwatch, and all we can do to figure out what's going on inside the pocketwatch is to watch the movement of the hands and listen to the ticking. The Truth is unobtainable. The best we can do is observe the effects the Truth has on us (AKA "facts"), and generate reasonable hypotheses based on those facts.

We can't know what the Truth is but we can know what isn't the Truth. Any hypothesis which contradicts the facts is not the Truth.

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Science doesn't so much claim they have the way to truth, rather, I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

No.

OK, I'll just whip it on you and see who groks it:

Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Igopogo
Is there such a thing as truth? - Yes

Is there such as discovering the truth? - I don't think so.

I dig this. I only add a third important part...

It is worthwhile to search for the truth.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by epepke


No.

OK, I'll just whip it on you and see who groks it:

Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.

What is falsehood?

Is the following statement a truth?:

Falsehood exists.

-Elliot

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Science is not a ' they ', it is a process..


The first post in this thread clearly talked about science and religion as groups, as schools of thought, and said (bold mine) "neither group actually proves that what they state is a truth". I was echoing the posters' terminology by saying "they".


Go look up ' axiom '... We will discuss it in class tomorrow...

I did look up 'axiom'. A dictionary said 'that which is assumed' and 'a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted'.

I can't wait for the teacher evals.

[Dorian Gray]

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ... Problem - the 'whole' cherry pie is not the only cherry pie. No two cherry pies are alike. There is a Guinness "largest cherry pie ever baked", and there is the McCherry Pie, and there is Sara Lee.

In other words, there are many different truths, and no absolute truth. I think absolute truth is infinite, and no matter how much truth one discovers it is still only a part. How is this different from the above? This encompasses all possible cherry pies, in whole or in part.

If nothing else, there will always be smaller and smaller particles, and a larger and larger universe. How is using the word 'always' not a contradiction of the above? I am a part of that truth, and therefore have never experienced it from any other point of view. If I did, I would not be me in this situation. That is knowledge of truth that cannot be known.

How is this not all a bunch of bullsh*t? It is.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by epepke

Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.

Possibly. Although I see those things as basically the same thing.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Problem - the 'whole' cherry pie is not the only cherry pie. No two cherry pies are alike. There is a Guinness "largest cherry pie ever baked", and there is the McCherry Pie, and there is Sara Lee.

In other words, there are many different truths, and no absolute truth. I think absolute truth is infinite, and no matter how much truth one discovers it is still only a part. How is this different from the above? This encompasses all possible cherry pies, in whole or in part.

If nothing else, there will always be smaller and smaller particles, and a larger and larger universe. How is using the word 'always' not a contradiction of the above? I am a part of that truth, and therefore have never experienced it from any other point of view. If I did, I would not be me in this situation. That is knowledge of truth that cannot be known.

How is this not all a bunch of bullsh*t? It is.

You dismantled the analogy very nicely.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


The first post in this thread clearly talked about science and religion as groups, as schools of thought, and said (bold mine) "neither group actually proves that what they state is a truth". I was echoing the posters' terminology by saying "they".

[/b] Echo is noted... But you said " ... I believe ' they ' " Which seems to be an assertion on your part that science is something other than a process.....



I did look up 'axiom'. A dictionary said 'that which is assumed' and 'a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted'.

I can't wait for the teacher evals.

So in the context of your earlier statement..
I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.



It would read :

" I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it ( the existance of truth )is assumed by science. "

or...

" I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it ( the existance of truth ) is taken for granted by science. "


Both statements are redundant, and it seems to be you, making a claim that science is a ' they ', the echo notwithstanding...


We will give you credit for proper use of the dictionary..

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Possibly. Although I see those things as basically the same thing.

Hmm... Zero for two so far.

Let's try again. All I need to show that something is false is to show that something contradicts or doesn't agree.

I don't have to show that is it somehow a possibly imperfect reflection from some Ideal True Falsehood.

Nobody gets these ideas about falsehood. Nobody posts a thread "Does falsehood exist?" For some reason, only Truth gets the Platonic treatment which sucks the eff out of it and makes it ineffable.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Hegel
This assumes that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. While science uses this assumption as one of its axioms, that doesn't nessecarily make it true.Isn't that what "contradictory" means---namely, that two contradictory statements cannot both be true? That's what I always thought it meant. What do you mean by the word "contradictory"?

[lifegazer]

"Is there such a thing as truth?"

Even the absolute negation of this question = an absolute truth.

In what sense can we say that there are/is no meaningful truth? Only in nonsense, imo.

The truth awaits us. Let us acknowledge she is there and we may find her.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Problem - the 'whole' cherry pie is not the only cherry pie. No two cherry pies are alike. There is a Guinness "largest cherry pie ever baked", and there is the McCherry Pie, and there is Sara Lee.

In other words, there are many different truths, and no absolute truth. I think absolute truth is infinite, and no matter how much truth one discovers it is still only a part. How is this different from the above? This encompasses all possible cherry pies, in whole or in part.

If nothing else, there will always be smaller and smaller particles, and a larger and larger universe. How is using the word 'always' not a contradiction of the above? I am a part of that truth, and therefore have never experienced it from any other point of view. If I did, I would not be me in this situation. That is knowledge of truth that cannot be known.

How is this not all a bunch of bullsh*t? It is. Yes, but in the name of "which" absolute are you preaching to me? That which is "totally" unfounded? ;)

Or how can I warrant such a comment as your last, without thinking I somehow got hit over the head with "an absolute?" Isn't that what you would like me to think? Otherwise, by what means do you justify such a thing?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

You need to know the history of Iacchus to understand. Also, if you look at the analogy, all he is saying is that we can see, hear, feel, touch, smell things, so they are real. Anyone who says this is a philosophy forum is either trolling, or never studied any philosophy.As you may well know "Russ," I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. ;)


Edited to add: All of his analogies (included this one) relay things that could be much more clearly stated without the anology. He doesn't use analogies to try to relay a difficult to explain idea, he uses them to try to mystify his ideas. And what makes you so "absolute" in your understanding of things?

Hey, if it wasn't for an absolute ground to everything (reality?), there would be no way -- hmm ... that almost sounds absolute now doesn't it? -- for you to articulate the scribblings on your computer screen, let alone anything else. ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As you may well know "Russ," I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. ;)


Another meaningless response from the great Iacchus. Try again.


And what makes you so "absolute" in your understanding of things?


That is my opinion of your behavior. If you disagree, let us know why.


Hey, if it wasn't for an absolute ground to everything (reality?), there would be no way -- hmm ... that almost sounds absolute now doesn't it? -- for you to articulate the scribblings on your computer screen, let alone anything else. ;)

umm..right, completely unrelated dribble.

[Dorian Gray]

1) Yes, but in the name of "which" absolute are you preaching to me?
2) That which is "totally" unfounded?
3) Or how can I warrant such a comment as your last, without thinking I somehow got hit over the head with "an absolute?"
4) Isn't that what you would like me to think?
5) Otherwise, by what means do you justify such a thing? Iacchus - he's got questions, I've got answers.

1) I am an atheist, and don't preach. The words that have totally demolished your position are collectively called 'a well-reasoned deconstructive argument'.
2) No. ("Did" you learn "about" quotes "today" in "school" or "something"?)
3) Iacchus, the point. The point, Iacchus.
4) It's not what I would like you to think, it's that I would like you to think.
5) A bad analogy is like a freedom-colored ambidextrous vacuum sidecar.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Iacchus - he's got questions, I've got answers.

1) I am an atheist, and don't preach. The words that have totally demolished your position are collectively called 'a well-reasoned deconstructive argument'.
2) No. ("Did" you learn "about" quotes "today" in "school" or "something"?)
3) Iacchus, the point. The point, Iacchus.
4) It's not what I would like you to think, it's that I would like you to think.
5) A bad analogy is like a freedom-colored ambidextrous vacuum sidecar. That's right douche bag (your reply from another thread). Absolutes don't exist. Then again have you ever stopped to wonder what holds the Universe together if it wasn't absolute? How could it maintain any consistency from one moment to the next? Would there be any coherence then? ... aside from "my own" of course. ;)

No, there has to be an absolute, not unless you think the Universe is about to "arbitrarily" change into something else anytime soon. You know, like within the next billionth of a second or so?

[Iacchus]

Absolutely!

[daenku32]

There are indefinitely more claims to truth, than there are truths. Therefore the certainty of a 'truth' is nearly inexistant.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's right douche bag (your reply from another thread). Absolutes don't exist. Then again have you ever stopped to wonder what holds the Universe together if it wasn't absolute? How could it maintain any consistency from one moment to the next? Would there be any coherence then? ... aside from "my own" of course. ;)

No, there has to be an absolute, not unless you think the Universe is about to "arbitrarily" change into something else anytime soon. You know, like within the next billionth of a second or so?

Interesting point about observational truth Iachuss and very similar to LG's enforcer argument. But I am not sure that the consistancy of the 'physical' realm would indicate absolutes.

In inflation theory the fields of the universe are somewhat 'frozen' from various possibilies at the point that the inflation ends.

So while the fields that we see apear to be fairly constant, they could have had different values.

And while the fields may act as though isotropy is a fact, I am not sure how that is an absolute. The values of the electrical charge could actualy change (Russ correct me if I am wrong) as long as the proportions remain the same.

The existance of the forces of nature is very chaotic in thier expression and shows a lot of fractured pieces, so I don't see an absolute there.

The universe that we observe it manifested through a constant series of changes, so I am not sure where you find an absolute.

Unless you mean in things like the eletrical charge of an electron, or the mass of an atom of hydrogen. But then again, say that there was a machine that created the universe and that it just happened to create all the pieces the same size, the potential for change would be there but not menifested.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And while the fields may act as though isotropy is a fact, I am not sure how that is an absolute. The values of the electrical charge could actualy change (Russ correct me if I am wrong) as long as the proportions remain the same.

The existance of the forces of nature is very chaotic in thier expression and shows a lot of fractured pieces, so I don't see an absolute there.


It really depends on what you are going to call an absolute. According to the theories we have to day, the universe today is a result of symmetry breaking. Turn the clock back long enough (or add up enough energy) and the symmetry comes back. The state of the universe we are in now is because this state is a lower energy state. Supposively, there may be a lower energy state, and symmetry could be broken again, but that isn't known one way or the other.

(By symmetry, I mean things like, there are differenty forces instead of one, ur-force, there are differenty families of bosons, mesons, etc. There are 3 large dimensions, and 7 little itty bitty ones)

This would seemingly be the changing of absolutes, but the underlying laws of physics (that we may never know for sure) don't change.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

There are indefinitely more claims to truth, than there are truths. Therefore the certainty of a 'truth' is nearly inexistant. And then there comes a time when you've gotta separate the wheat from the chaff. ;) The truth exists in everything, in every single last detail, of everything that exists, although "relative" from one thing to the next. This is also what we call science by the way.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RussDill


It really depends on what you are going to call an absolute. According to the theories we have to day, the universe today is a result of symmetry breaking. Turn the clock back long enough (or add up enough energy) and the symmetry comes back. The state of the universe we are in now is because this state is a lower energy state. Supposively, there may be a lower energy state, and symmetry could be broken again, but that isn't known one way or the other.



And so to me that has always meant a kind of arbitrary nature to the laws of physics, in that the the values of the system just kind of ended up that way. Which I think is a kind of truth that just is the way it is. And since it is a material truth I figured that would be hard to be absolute the way that the philospohers say absolute. They seem to save absolute for vauge, intangible and transcendent notions that are beyond scientific discussion.
;)

[JAK]

Though this thread has been quiet for quite some time, I was intrigued by how many of the comments closely followed ideas presented by philosophers throughout history.

To start with, it is always important to have working definitions, as DVFinn pointed out:
Originally posted by DVFinn
So, how about a definition of "Truth" before debating whether it exists or not? It always helps to know the question before assembling the answer. Truth is one of those crazy words that can be spun a number of ways.


Since humans are “tool makers,� one approach at definition is to ask, “Is this tool any good?" Iacchus and Dorian Gray pointed this out:

Originally posted by Iacchus
...
How could it maintain any consistency from one moment to the next? Would there be any coherence then?
...

I think the answer was jokingly, but nevertheless adroitly pointed out by Dorian Gray:
Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I have unequivocal evidence of truth. No, wait, I lied.
...

If anything, we “rely� on truth for guidance and to make predictions. (If it fails, we sue the ba-jeepers out of who “lied� to us.) If truth is useful, it must be constant ...

I was born in 1975. No, no, wait. Now I was born in 1857. Nope. Hang-on, history is changing on me again. Okay, now I was born in 1492 in Pangea.

Additionally, truth would be handier if it was ubiquitous - omnipresent. It’s troublesome to fly from L.A. to Miami and then be re-routed to Atlanta because, “Sorry, thermodynamics stopped working in Miami today. We hope this is a temporary outage. But it’s still working in Georgia!�

To satisfy these needs, a Theory of Truth was sought by philosophers. In fact, they sought what Iacchus focused upon: consistency and coherence. The Coherence Theory of Truth, originating from Benetict Spinoza and Georg Hegel, recognized that the universe is “integrated.� Though we split it into physics, biology, music, psychology, business, etc., all of the facets of each of these “fields� work harmoniously together, or “cohere.� One field doesn’t stop where the other begins. Though coherence is, perhaps, the strongest theory of truth, it is unattainable for mere mortals because it requires omniscience to be utilized. Our best bet is to gain in knowledge and apply whatever “coherence� we can muster. Zero and Dancing David hit on this nicely:
Originally posted by Zero
'Truth' would depend on having ALL the information, I think(I don't have enough information to know that 100%;) )

Show me someone that knows everything, and even then it is quesswork, because he could weight his answers to questions based on bias. I don't think there is any way around the inherent limitations of humanity...

...but I could be wrong!

Originally posted by Dancing David
...
There is no truth ever, humans can only approximate the 'truth' whatever ill considered thought that may be.
...

Until we know everything – both past and future, too – there will always be that little voice saying (and as Zero pointedly highlighted), “... I could be wrong!�

Upchurch summed up the issue with the Coherence Theory when he said ...
Originally posted by Upchurch
...
Does Truth exist? I'm not sure.

__________________________________________________ ______________

To counter the limitation of the Coherence Theory, Negative Pragmatism was postulated during the mid-20th century by William Ernest Hocking:

“... if an idea does not work, then it cannot possibly be true, for reason that the truth always works ...� – Sahakian & Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers, 1966


These statements by Christian, Beleth, Epepke, and DVFinn are all virtually Negative Pragmatism:
Originally posted by Christian
...
Science does not claim to have a way to figure out the truth. The essence of science is that theories must be falsifiable, testable.
...
That we conclude that because a theory has yet to be proven false (because it's predictability is 100% so far), it is true, is our jump, not science's.

Originally posted by Beleth
...
We can't know what the Truth is but we can know what isn't the Truth. Any hypothesis which contradicts the facts is not the Truth.
...
[/B]
Originally posted by epepke
Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.
...
Let's try again. All I need to show that something is false is to show that something contradicts or doesn't agree.
...

Originally posted by DVFinn
...
When contradictory evidence is found then our ideas on what is true must be modified.
...

__________________________________________________ ______________

But I would give the prize to Hammegk:
Originally posted by hammegk
no
;)
To test any truth, to believe in true or false, one first has to accept these two states as possible. We believe true and false exists. We believe that “yes� and “no� exist. We rely on this truth. We believe it exists throughout the universe and at all levels – macro and micro.

In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." - http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Law_of_non-contradiction/


There is that which ‘is’ and that which ‘is not.� This is the essence of “difference.� If there were no differences in the universe, there would be no biology, no chemistry, no physics, no three-dimensional space, no time, no thing whatsoever. The universe would be homogeneous – without feature.

If there is truth – something constant and ubiquitous for us to rely upon – it must be the existence of “difference.� Without it, we would cease to exist.

Will it exist forever????

Originally posted by elliotfc
...
If you don't believe in the existence of truth that is just faith. Not that there is anything wrong with faith.

Elliot, perhaps in the end, truth is just that – faith.

[BillyJoe]

.....or a progressive retreat from faith

[hammegk]

.... or movement from one set of faiths to another set of faiths ...

[Iacchus]

The truth is as plain as the nose on your face! ... Provided that you have both a face and a nose! ;)

[Eleatic Stranger]

This assumes that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. While science uses this assumption as one of its axioms, that doesn't nessecarily make it true.

I know the obvious problem here has already been pointed out, but it's so pretty of a statement that I thought it needed restatement.

Look at it - see, since the meaning of 'contradictory' is such that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, that means that the sentence starting it off can be restated as:

This assumes that two statements that cannot both be true cannot both be true.

Now, to deny that this is necessarily true would be to say
Two statements that cannot both be true can both be true

Of course, this is a contradiction. However, as the statement points out, contradictions can be true! The dance of unreason continues on unabated!

Oh, and the traditional catagorization of theories of truth goes more like:
1. Correspondance (Truth is a property of sentences who's content accurately represents facts in the world.)
2. Coherence (Truth is a property of sentences that - taken as a group of beliefs - cohere rationally. (Side Note: this is not as silly or unworkable as it may seem at first, for various reasons.))
3. Pragmatic (Truth is a property of sentences that work/Truth is what, ideally, we'd all agree on eventually.)
4. Minimalist (Truth is an intra-linguistic, and not inter-linguistic, thing.)(note: contains deflationary, grammatical, prosentential, etc. theories)

That's pretty rough and ready, but it's basically a good structure to look at it in. Also I should note that science traditionally works with a standard correspondence theory of truth - though all truth theories work just fine with its methodology. The falsification view of science with Popper popularized (though which, amusingly enough, suffers from precisely the same problem as the earlier view) isn't a theory of truth as such - it's a view of how best to get to it.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Bob: Is there such a thing as truth?

Mary: No.

Bob: Is that true?

[Kitty Chan]

Nice sum up JAK

Interesting thread, thats why I like these boards.

The Quest for Truth

Does Truth exist and does Falsehood exist?

A common goal for science and religion is the search for Truth to prove the Falsehood does not apply.

So thereby seeking a greater and more accurate Truth.

Falsehood needs no apologists, no one to convince that its there perhaps because its an everyday occurance and not hard to find.

Whereas Truth is elusive, hard to find and requires difficult searching to attain.

And when we find Truth its only a part with a glimpse that there is more to discover, so the search continues to find Truth.

So I will say Truth exists, we have only found parts of a whole.

[TeaBag420]

The answer is obviously "yes" because if the answer is "no" then that is true, therefore the answer is "yes".

Seeing the amount of time that goes into intellectual masturbation around here, it's a wonder how most of you ever get out of the house.

[Iacchus]

I am conscious, and that is the one truth by which we measure all others ... Or, was that I think therefore I am? Hmm ... :)

So, could it be that our relationship with the truth is internal? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=363)

[c4ts]

Eh? What is truth? Why should it be any different from anything else?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I am conscious, and that is the one truth by which we measure all others ... Or, was that I think therefore I am? Hmm ... :) .....and if you don't actually exist?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

.....and if you don't actually exist? That would be telling then wouldn't it? ;)

[elliotfc]

OK. How about this.

People search for answers. That's an inarguable point. Does the search imply the existence of answers? Maybe, and maybe not. Maybe there really are no answers, and what we think are answers are only temporary statements just waiting to be invalidated by what we don't yet know, or don't fully understand.

Yet if that is the case, we admit that better answers have to exist, even if they themselves are temporary and insufficient answers.

The search for answers could be
a) circular
b) random
c) bifurcating
d) directed

Am I missing anything?

Does the reality that temporary or working answers exist suggest that Truth exists? Yes, I think so. I've only re-phrased what Kitty says, but I think it's quite indicative that even the people who say there is no Truth are searching for better answers. Our behavior betrays or belies anything we say.

So is our behavior a coping mechanism? Is it fueled by a natural desire that is *good*, for lack of a better word?

I don't have any inherent fear or loathing of accepting a premise that I can never actually possess or confine. Truth would be greater than all of us. Truth can not be scientifically measured or controlled, or bottled. This didn't bother countless philosophers, who happily deduced the existence of Truth without fretting about human insufficiencies.

Working solution? Who cares what people believe, what people do speaks volumes. We all act like we believe in the existence of Truth, so quit apologizing about it. :)

-Elliot

[drkitten]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Isn't that what "contradictory" means---namely, that two contradictory statements cannot both be true? That's what I always thought it meant. What do you mean by the word "contradictory"?

Not always; in more formal contexts, "contradiction" can also mean
a set of statements from which "nil" can be derived, or a set of
statements that can be proven equivalent to "A ^ not-A," etc. There are a lot of logical systems that take the notion of contradiction a lot more seriously than simple binary yes/no.

[JAK]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Not always; in more formal contexts, "contradiction" can also mean
a set of statements from which "nil" can be derived, or a set of
statements that can be proven equivalent to "A ^ not-A," etc. There are a lot of logical systems that take the notion of contradiction a lot more seriously than simple binary yes/no.

Intriguing ... I'd like to learn more.

Have you got an example? Author/reference?