The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
mystery wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 5:30 am
Truth is an opinion even if shared by many. . . Yet any truth is subject to be overturned, even facts are only one discovery to being incorrect.
Truth is defined to be factual. Fact cannot be overturned. It is a mistake to equate truth with opinion. Fact is what you have to face, unless you are in denial. Say: you are a man, and that is a fact. Period. Good or bad to be a man has nothing to do with the fact.
It is a superstition to believe that science can explain all, sooner or later. Science cannot explain which egg among a thousand thrown against a wall would remain intact on the grass, let alone when. All it can say is that, if the experiment is repeated many times, the chance is one in a thousand. Some smart thinker may entertain with the random theory to sooth you, but random theory is description, not science. Some may believe in divine intervention, which is also fine.
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2021, 10:41 am
It's thought-provoking to me because it makes me ask what it really means to know or be certain about something and I've never been able to quite answer this for myself. There have been plenty of times in my life when I've felt absolutely certain about something only to have been proven wrong.
I guess this has led me to feel that when we say such things as 'I know' or 'I am certain' or 'it is well known', we're expressing something more about our internal state of confidence with the subject being discussed, or our perceived ability to demonstrate knowledge through the performance of certain tasks (e.g. the ability to answer certain questions on a test in accordance with a certain set of right or wrong answers) than we are about the actual truth or falsehood of the information itself.
It probably deserves its own separate thread but I'm not sure where I'd start the conversation.
That is an interesting topic. Truth is an opinion even if shared by many. Self-confidence is in part about being assertive, being assertive usually means having a truth and defending or promoting it. Yet any truth is subject to be overturned, even facts are only one discovery to being incorrect.
Usually, anyone that is interested in getting the most accurate information will consider opposing information in detail.
This is not in sync however with social and financial success, so we learn to not do it.
The more I've thought about it, the more I've started to think that William James had the right idea when he said: "Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons." In other words, if I'm understanding him correctly, we call something 'true' because it meets a certain set of qualifications for us - it fulfills that criteria which we value for meeting our definition of something that is true.
So in the context of what we've been discussing, for example, there are beliefs or propositions for which we value certain kinds or amounts of evidence, and when that qualification is met, we say it to be true. It is those 'definite, assignable reasons' that drive what we hold to be true, rather than some objective 'truth' that exists out there somewhere waiting for us to find it.
mystery wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 5:30 am
Truth is an opinion even if shared by many. . . Yet any truth is subject to be overturned, even facts are only one discovery to being incorrect.
Truth is defined to be factual. Fact cannot be overturned. It is a mistake to equate truth with opinion. Fact is what you have to face, unless you are in denial. Say: you are a man, and that is a fact. Period. Good or bad to be a man has nothing to do with the fact.
It is a superstition to believe that science can explain all, sooner or later. Science cannot explain which egg among a thousand thrown against a wall would remain intact on the grass, let alone when. All it can say is that, if the experiment is repeated many times, the chance is one in a thousand. Some smart thinker may entertain with the random theory to sooth you, but random theory is description, not science. Some may believe in divine intervention, which is also fine.
actually, as most algorithm engineers know, random is very predictable.
mystery wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 2:37 am
actually, as most algorithm engineers know, random is very predictable.
On the contrary, random is impossible to predict. The problem is generating anything that is truly random, not just an approximation that is (underneath it all) actually predictable (i.e. non-random). Have you ever tried to write a random number generator?
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 10:54 am
The more I've thought about it, the more I've started to think that William James had the right idea when he said: "Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons." In other words, if I'm understanding him correctly, we call something 'true' because it meets a certain set of qualifications for us - it fulfills that criteria which we value for meeting our definition of something that is true.
So in the context of what we've been discussing, for example, there are beliefs or propositions for which we value certain kinds or amounts of evidence, and when that qualification is met, we say it to be true. It is those 'definite, assignable reasons' that drive what we hold to be true, rather than some objective 'truth' that exists out there somewhere waiting for us to find it.
does it mean that truth is a choice?
Only for a solipsist. One of the 'definite, assignable reasons' that we consider something to be truth is that is that it is universally so. When we believe things that can be found by others to be false, those things begin to lose their truth value to us.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 9:21 am
One of the 'definite, assignable reasons' that we consider something to be truth is that is that it is universally so. When we believe things that can be found by others to be false, those things begin to lose their truth value to us.
I think "true" and "truth" are things that look simple, and we think we understand them without further consideration. Then we find that philosophers have written books big enough to break a coffee table, just about "truth". There's more to truth than we might think....
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 9:21 am
Only for a solipsist. One of the 'definite, assignable reasons' that we consider something to be truth is that is that it is universally so. When we believe things that can be found by others to be false, those things begin to lose their truth value to us.
It appears you are mixing up your belief with truth. You believe in your own opinion, which holds something to be true. Truth is factual, independent of belief. You are married? Fine. It is not what others can be found to be false. Truth is for all to see, not for everyone to vote on.
Evidence is "linkage" between event and outcome, both of which are truth. Evidence arises from induction of linkage. A miracle may induce God's existence, or reward for a person's benevolence in life or past life, or Buddha's mercy.
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 9:21 am
Only for a solipsist. One of the 'definite, assignable reasons' that we consider something to be truth is that is that it is universally so. When we believe things that can be found by others to be false, those things begin to lose their truth value to us.
It appears you are mixing up your belief with truth. You believe in your own opinion, which holds something to be true. Truth is factual, independent of belief. You are married? Fine. It is not what others can be found to be false. Truth is for all to see, not for everyone to vote on.
That's not what I'm saying at all - please consider my post in the context of the entire conversation and of the quote from William James that I cited earlier. Of course truth is not a matter of voting for one's opinion or preference - I never suggested that it could be.
What I think James is saying is that truth (or factuality) is a judgment we make based on more strict criteria than that which we would use to form an opinion or belief. One of those criteria is that it be able to hold true for everyone - if and when it doesn't, it no longer qualifies. In other words, truth could be thought of as the highest quality of belief.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
Many things in life are self evident. Evidence is when you are unsure of something.
The obsession with evidence in intellectual circles is a sure sign of uncertainty of mind,AKA fear of the unknown,paranoia,lack of confidence.
mystery wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 2:37 am
actually, as most algorithm engineers know, random is very predictable.
On the contrary, random is impossible to predict. The problem is generating anything that is truly random, not just an approximation that is (underneath it all) actually predictable (i.e. non-random). Have you ever tried to write a random number generator?
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 10:54 am
The more I've thought about it, the more I've started to think that William James had the right idea when he said: "Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons." In other words, if I'm understanding him correctly, we call something 'true' because it meets a certain set of qualifications for us - it fulfills that criteria which we value for meeting our definition of something that is true.
So in the context of what we've been discussing, for example, there are beliefs or propositions for which we value certain kinds or amounts of evidence, and when that qualification is met, we say it to be true. It is those 'definite, assignable reasons' that drive what we hold to be true, rather than some objective 'truth' that exists out there somewhere waiting for us to find it.
does it mean that truth is a choice?
Only for a solipsist. One of the 'definite, assignable reasons' that we consider something to be truth is that is that it is universally so. When we believe things that can be found by others to be false, those things begin to lose their truth value to us.
how can we know that something is universally so? our position in the universe is very small.
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 1:30 pm
What I think James is saying is that truth (or factuality) is a judgment we make based on more strict criteria than that which we would use to form an opinion or belief. One of those criteria is that it be able to hold true for everyone - if and when it doesn't, it no longer qualifies. In other words, truth could be thought of as the highest quality of belief.
Truth is what you see and experience; what has happened, and what is happening. Truth is above and beyond your judgment and criterion, no matter how qualified you may be. Truth establishes itself by its very existence.
The highest quality of belief is conviction.
Truth is true, full stop.
Let me repeat: Evidence is linkage between event and outcome, both of which are truths.
gad-fly wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 12:01 pm
It appears you are mixing up your belief with truth.
Aren't you familiar with (propositional) knowledge? It's justified true belief.
And truth value is standardly parsed as a property of propositions. Propositions are meanings. On my view truth value, as a property of meanings, can only obtain via a judgment about the relationship of a proposition to something else, which means that beliefs must be involved.
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 9:21 am
Only for a solipsist. One of the 'definite, assignable reasons' that we consider something to be truth is that is that it is universally so. When we believe things that can be found by others to be false, those things begin to lose their truth value to us.
how can we know that something is universally so? our position in the universe is very small.
You're right, and I don't think we can know that about many things at all. That's sort of the point that Pattern-chaser and chewybrian were making earlier in the thread that prompted my original comment - there are very few, if any, things that we can know for certain. Perhaps we could say that the only thing that we can really know is ourselves. It's the Socratic paradox, isn't it, that the only thing we really know is that we know nothing - that's the very nature of wisdom.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus