How Can 'Truth' Be Established?

[Atla]

The Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary assumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.

Wow! The Razor is a tool to choose between assumptions (guesses), not to avoid them. There is nothing about the Razor, or the way it works, that will help to "produce the most accurate view of reality". You misrepresent the Razor as a formal and scientific (?) technique. It is nothing of the sort. It is a guideline, like a proverb. "Look before you leap" is good advice, but no-one (I hope) would suggest it as a formal investigative technique. The same applies to the Razor.

Don't you understand what the word "probably" means? I don't think I'm the one here who can't let go of the need for absolute certainty.

Sorry, are you referring back to text that neither of us has quoted here? I can't see "probably" anywhere.

Yes I left it out after including "probably", "guesses", "relative certainty", "no absolute certainty" etc. like 10 times in earlier posts, hoping that some dishonest guy won't take a cheap shot.

[Pattern-chaser]

...hoping that some dishonest guy won't take a cheap shot.

I'm posting honest and sincere words/thoughts here; I'm not prepared to descend into insults.

The End.

[Atla]

...hoping that some dishonest guy won't take a cheap shot.

I'm posting honest and sincere words/thoughts here; I'm not prepared to descend into insults.

The End.

And he also doesn't own his behaviour as usual.

[JackDaydream]

I definitely see the material/mental split as unhelpful, especially in the form of the Newtonian-Cartesian model. The issue may whether one needs to have come across the model through examining it in the first place. It may be that without examining the ideas of the thinkers of the past it might be a task of discovering the ideas which they stumbled upon. Through looking at these thinkers we are able to stand on the shoulders of giants, although there are so many that they would constitute a tall chain of towers into the skies. It may be that the razor is useful but a complex process and that the outcomes would be different amongst many people. Perhaps, this is part of the ongoing task which each of us is doing, even if there are fierce fights as to what gets thrown away by some and recycled by another.

Then there are the other two big made-up dichotomies in the philosophy of mind, the subject-object dichotomy, and the illusion of the ego "I" vs "not-I" dichotomy. Although they can be seen as the same dichotomy.

Occam's razor cuts them out, which, when we go all the way, eventually leads to what I think is called in some Eastern philosophies as "awakening", "realizing our true nature".

So you see we go back all the way to like, Plato, and say naah

I certainly would not wish to rule out Eastern philosophy or Plato. The concept of awakening in conjunction or contrast to the brutality of the Occam's Razor make philosophy a knife edge of exploration, with the fine tuning of logic and the search for meaning, understanding and even transformation of consciousness.

[JackDaydream]

"Most people don't seem to use this, and I have absolutely no idea why they are doing philosophy then."

Everyday life is one thing; philosophy, even speculative philosophy, is something else, I think.

Let's see, what's this. My first idea was that this might be a reply from Pattern-Chaser, but then I remembered to discard the Razor.

Really?

The Razor is a valuable tool, when applied appropriately, as I'm sure you're aware.

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".[1][2] It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred.

If we have a situation where we need to act illogically — discarding possibilities without evidence, or some other reason to do so — but we insist on proceeding anyway, then the Razor is there to help us guess which possibility seems the most likely. In this case, where we are trying to 'firm up' or formalise our thinking, I don't think the Razor is helpful. We aren't choosing between one list of possible solutions to a question we have already determined, we are looking at questions, and wondering which we should consider. The Razor doesn't seem helpful for this.

This exchange began here:

However, I do still wonder about the various viewpoints of thinkers, wondering about their validity and where they stand in connection with the concept of truth, even though I realise they it is hard to pin it down in any clear way.

Jack is wondering how we might 'firm up' our thinking, as I mentioned. Your suggestion was:

There is one such way, going for maximum relative certainty using Occam's razor.

Most people don't seem to use this, and I have absolutely no idea why they are doing philosophy then. Without it, there are like an infinite amount of equally good explanations for anything.

Your words imply that the Razor is a tool that can be used to make our thinking more 'formal', or even 'scientific', and it can't. It's just a rule of thumb, nothing more. It doesn't formalise our thinking in that way.

Let's see, what's this. My first idea was that this might be a reply from Pattern-Chaser, but then I remembered to discard the Razor.

I never suggested discarding the Razor, but I did and do suggest that we employ it appropriately, as I discussed above.

It is interesting to think about how one may 'firm up' thinking. I don't dismiss Ocam's Razor as one aspect of this. However, there may be various methods and tools, with one of the biggest being that of subjectivity as opposed to objectivity. Science may be important but, even then, the various perspectives or models may be limited by logic and language. However, reason and the conceptual framing in terms of understanding in words may be the basis on which human beings can search for the grasp of the concept of truth; which may in itself be a conceptual ideal or idea.

[Atla]

I definitely see the material/mental split as unhelpful, especially in the form of the Newtonian-Cartesian model. The issue may whether one needs to have come across the model through examining it in the first place. It may be that without examining the ideas of the thinkers of the past it might be a task of discovering the ideas which they stumbled upon. Through looking at these thinkers we are able to stand on the shoulders of giants, although there are so many that they would constitute a tall chain of towers into the skies. It may be that the razor is useful but a complex process and that the outcomes would be different amongst many people. Perhaps, this is part of the ongoing task which each of us is doing, even if there are fierce fights as to what gets thrown away by some and recycled by another.

Then there are the other two big made-up dichotomies in the philosophy of mind, the subject-object dichotomy, and the illusion of the ego "I" vs "not-I" dichotomy. Although they can be seen as the same dichotomy.

Occam's razor cuts them out, which, when we go all the way, eventually leads to what I think is called in some Eastern philosophies as "awakening", "realizing our true nature".

So you see we go back all the way to like, Plato, and say naah

I certainly would not wish to rule out Eastern philosophy or Plato. The concept of awakening in conjunction or contrast to the brutality of the Occam's Razor make philosophy a knife edge of exploration, with the fine tuning of logic and the search for meaning, understanding and even transformation of consciousness.

The razor says that Western philosophy is probably wrong, Eastern dualistic philosophies are also probably wrong, and Eastern nondualism is probably correct. So the razor says that the Eastern kind of "awakening" is real, part of the real deal philosophy, probably.

So a form of "mysticism" turns out to be the most rational philosophy, probably. That's a bit hilarious I think.

And then after we did all that, spent a few years going to the awakening process, reinterpreting all philosophy, all existence etc., that's where philosophy really takes off imo. Because the biggest question is yet to be addressed using speculative philosophy, using the razor.

[JackDaydream]

I definitely see the material/mental split as unhelpful, especially in the form of the Newtonian-Cartesian model. The issue may whether one needs to have come across the model through examining it in the first place. It may be that without examining the ideas of the thinkers of the past it might be a task of discovering the ideas which they stumbled upon. Through looking at these thinkers we are able to stand on the shoulders of giants, although there are so many that they would constitute a tall chain of towers into the skies. It may be that the razor is useful but a complex process and that the outcomes would be different amongst many people. Perhaps, this is part of the ongoing task which each of us is doing, even if there are fierce fights as to what gets thrown away by some and recycled by another.

Then there are the other two big made-up dichotomies in the philosophy of mind, the subject-object dichotomy, and the illusion of the ego "I" vs "not-I" dichotomy. Although they can be seen as the same dichotomy.

Occam's razor cuts them out, which, when we go all the way, eventually leads to what I think is called in some Eastern philosophies as "awakening", "realizing our true nature".

So you see we go back all the way to like, Plato, and say naah

I certainly would not wish to rule out Eastern philosophy or Plato. The concept of awakening in conjunction or contrast to the brutality of the Occam's Razor make philosophy a knife edge of exploration, with the fine tuning of logic and the search for meaning, understanding and even transformation of consciousness.

The razor says that Western philosophy is probably wrong, Eastern dualistic philosophies are also probably wrong, and Eastern nondualism is probably correct. So the razor says that the Eastern kind of "awakening" is real, part of the real deal philosophy, probably.

So a form of "mysticism" turns out to be the most rational philosophy, probably. That's a bit hilarious I think.

And then after we did all that, spent a few years going to the awakening process, reinterpreting all philosophy, all existence etc., that's where philosophy really takes off imo. Because the biggest question is yet to be addressed using speculative philosophy, using the razor.

An interesting answer; does it mean that all philosophy has an an aspect of fantasy? Some people continue to live on the basis of mundane reality. Others may reach for the heights in terms of 'awakening' and understanding. The mystics point to the limits of words in trying to understand the unknown. In some ways, it is amazing that philosophy is able to understand as much as it does, especially causality. There is the methodology of empirical science, as well as the logic of conceptual thinking. It is interesting to see how the razor can cut through the knots of speculative philosophy in a way which has a basis in empiricism and rationality, in order to address the idea of 'truth' in a way which goes beyond psychological needs for understanding.

[Atla]

Then there are the other two big made-up dichotomies in the philosophy of mind, the subject-object dichotomy, and the illusion of the ego "I" vs "not-I" dichotomy. Although they can be seen as the same dichotomy.

Occam's razor cuts them out, which, when we go all the way, eventually leads to what I think is called in some Eastern philosophies as "awakening", "realizing our true nature".

So you see we go back all the way to like, Plato, and say naah

I certainly would not wish to rule out Eastern philosophy or Plato. The concept of awakening in conjunction or contrast to the brutality of the Occam's Razor make philosophy a knife edge of exploration, with the fine tuning of logic and the search for meaning, understanding and even transformation of consciousness.

The razor says that Western philosophy is probably wrong, Eastern dualistic philosophies are also probably wrong, and Eastern nondualism is probably correct. So the razor says that the Eastern kind of "awakening" is real, part of the real deal philosophy, probably.

So a form of "mysticism" turns out to be the most rational philosophy, probably. That's a bit hilarious I think.

And then after we did all that, spent a few years going to the awakening process, reinterpreting all philosophy, all existence etc., that's where philosophy really takes off imo. Because the biggest question is yet to be addressed using speculative philosophy, using the razor.

An interesting answer; does it mean that all philosophy has an an aspect of fantasy? Some people continue to live on the basis of mundane reality. Others may reach for the heights in terms of 'awakening' and understanding. The mystics point to the limits of words in trying to understand the unknown. In some ways, it is amazing that philosophy is able to understand as much as it does, especially causality. There is the methodology of empirical science, as well as the logic of conceptual thinking. It is interesting to see how the razor can cut through the knots of speculative philosophy in a way which has a basis in empiricism and rationality, in order to address the idea of 'truth' in a way which goes beyond psychological needs for understanding.

Wouldn't call it fantasy. It's quite the opposite actually: everyone in the Western world is living a misguided fantasy about the nature of themselves. They all have the same fantasy so they don't notice.

I guess we could also call it an often useful, often romantic, often debilitating mass psychosis.

Awakening is when this fantasy breaks apart, and people realize their true nature (or lack thereof). And that's the first time when they see existence as it actually is.

[JackDaydream]

I certainly would not wish to rule out Eastern philosophy or Plato. The concept of awakening in conjunction or contrast to the brutality of the Occam's Razor make philosophy a knife edge of exploration, with the fine tuning of logic and the search for meaning, understanding and even transformation of consciousness.

The razor says that Western philosophy is probably wrong, Eastern dualistic philosophies are also probably wrong, and Eastern nondualism is probably correct. So the razor says that the Eastern kind of "awakening" is real, part of the real deal philosophy, probably.

So a form of "mysticism" turns out to be the most rational philosophy, probably. That's a bit hilarious I think.

And then after we did all that, spent a few years going to the awakening process, reinterpreting all philosophy, all existence etc., that's where philosophy really takes off imo. Because the biggest question is yet to be addressed using speculative philosophy, using the razor.

An interesting answer; does it mean that all philosophy has an an aspect of fantasy? Some people continue to live on the basis of mundane reality. Others may reach for the heights in terms of 'awakening' and understanding. The mystics point to the limits of words in trying to understand the unknown. In some ways, it is amazing that philosophy is able to understand as much as it does, especially causality. There is the methodology of empirical science, as well as the logic of conceptual thinking. It is interesting to see how the razor can cut through the knots of speculative philosophy in a way which has a basis in empiricism and rationality, in order to address the idea of 'truth' in a way which goes beyond psychological needs for understanding.

Wouldn't call it fantasy. It's quite the opposite actually: everyone in the Western world is living a misguided fantasy about the nature of themselves. They all have the same fantasy so they don't notice.

I guess we could also call it an often useful, often romantic, often debilitating mass psychosis.

Awakening is when this fantasy breaks apart, and people realize their true nature (or lack thereof). And that's the first time when they see existence as it actually is.

One major question may be where does facts and fiction lie, especially in relation to fantasy because so much of the narratives which make up the ideas and meaning are based on interpretations, which may be symbolic or based on psychological constructions of 'truthx'. This is where it gets complicated because there is the whole level of psychological understanding and how it corresponds with the methods and logic of philosophy investigation.

[JackDaydream]

For anyone who is interested in my thread topic, I have just been reading an article, 'What is Truth? ' by Richard Oxenburg in ' Philosophy Now', ( April/ May 2022). This examines the concept of truth, especially the nature of scientific ones , and the author asks, 'What might be questioned, however, is whether the sort of truths the sciences provide are the truths we most fundamentally seek.'.Here; the author is questioning the basis of the concept of truth, especially how much is it about descriptive explanations of reality or values. This may be where it becomes complicated in balancing descriptive and explanatory understanding in the life The understanding of how really works, especially in terms of descriptive causality, in relation to social meanings and values may be part of the puzzle of thinking constructively, breaking down the bare essentials of life in the most cohesive and comprehensive ways of trying to understand life and existence

.

[JackDaydream]

I would just add that the idea of 'truth' may be seen in varying ways, ranging from that of logic, or even mathematics and grammar a Also, it can be seen in relation to aspects of objective reality, as well as the psychological al, spects. This makes it a extremely complicated, although at times 'truth- may be grasped intuitively, or on the basis of feeling, making truth a concept to be strived towards but hard to define. It may linger as an undercurrent of searching in life and philosophy and as a goal in human life.

[Pattern-chaser]

...hoping that some dishonest guy won't take a cheap shot.

I'm posting honest and sincere words/thoughts here; I'm not prepared to descend into insults.

The End.

And he also doesn't own his behaviour as usual.

I accept full responsibility for my own actions. I believe I have behaved with courtesy; that has always been, and remains, my intention. But I will not descend into insults; they prove nothing; they achieve nothing (constructive).

[Atla]

...hoping that some dishonest guy won't take a cheap shot.

I'm posting honest and sincere words/thoughts here; I'm not prepared to descend into insults.

The End.

And he also doesn't own his behaviour as usual.

I accept full responsibility for my own actions. I believe I have behaved with courtesy; that has always been, and remains, my intention. But I will not descend into insults; they prove nothing; they achieve nothing (constructive).

Very well, but in that case, looks like you can't use the probabilistic thinking of the right hemisphere at all.

[Pattern-chaser]

...looks like you can't use the probabilistic thinking of the right hemisphere at all.

Oh. I try not to allow myself to get too immersed in probabilistic thinking, as it has long been an enthusiasm of mine. Whenever I see a binary statement - - "it's either black or it's white!" - it calls out to me: "what about maybe?" - or in this case, "what about grey?" Bayesian stuff is interesting too. Some claim it helps to justify things that have always been considered unjustifiable...

The drawback with probabilities is when we try to apply probability and statistics when we have no justification at all for even guessing at a particular probability. We assume it's 'likely' (or unlikely) because we believe it is, usually without any justification at all. <shrug> <baffled>

[JackDaydream]

...looks like you can't use the probabilistic thinking of the right hemisphere at all.

Oh. I try not to allow myself to get too immersed in probabilistic thinking, as it has long been an enthusiasm of mine. Whenever I see a binary statement - - "it's either black or it's white!" - it calls out to me: "what about maybe?" - or in this case, "what about grey?" Bayesian stuff is interesting too. Some claim it helps to justify things that have always been considered unjustifiable...

The drawback with probabilities is when we try to apply probability and statistics when we have no justification at all for even guessing at a particular probability. We assume it's 'likely' (or unlikely) because we believe it is, usually without any justification at all. <shrug> <baffled>

One book on uncertainty and probability which I find extremely interesting is Nassim Taleb''s, 'The Black Swan,' which shows how difficult probability is because there are the black swans which defy logic in the way they show up. He also suggests that the art is to take advantages of the black swans, or exceptions to what is expected through making use of them positively. I definitely find that life seems to come with so many black swans, which make predicting the future difficult, but it can be hard to turn some of these into positive possibilities rather than becoming broken down and defeated when life doesn't go as planned..