|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Truth
Isn't this just a tad CPcentric?--Bobbing up 17:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)
perhaps --142.176.13.19 17:38, 14 November 2007 (EST)
I"m not sure I buy this article[edit]
Truth is perception, not fact. Facts are facts, proven and concrete - truth is how you see those facts, how they align in the world, and Truth is very much different from one to another. The example I use with my students is a foot ball game. The fact is teh score. the fact is who ran teh touch down. the fact is what time the scores were made, and how many sacs happened. But "truth" is perception. Did one team "play better offense" or did the other team "suck at defense"? or something in between. Was the game influenced by the call of the refs, and were those calls right or wrong? That's all part of "truth" which is subjective. --
En attendant Godot 18:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever happened to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?
ListenerXTalkerX 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, talk to any lawyer about what happened to *that*. "did you murder your wife", "No" (but i did torture her and if she died, well....). "Do you know the way to santa fe"? "no", (I know many ways, none of which is *the* way). That's why I'm dubious that "truth" is so concrete as this article seems to present. but what do i know. there's a reason I did not go for a Philo degree. to hard on the mind.--
En attendant Godot 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- What the sweet mary fuck are you on about? How can a fact be "proven and concrete" without a positive truth value? --Robledo (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Truth is not an all or nothing thing, Robeldo. A fact is true. Truth may not be, depending on whose truth it is. If "truth" were only applied to facts, it would be one and the same, but it's not. as i said, truth is applied to the interpretation of those facts. "The team played great" (an opinion, but also truth) is not something that can be factually proven. "We would not have won if the pitcher had not had that shut out in the 9th". reasonable, plausable, and truthful. but not a fact. This is pretty basic philo 101 stuff... i'm sure you've addressed it somewhere.En attendant Godot 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The particular philosophy to which you refer is also known as bullshit in many circles. But, in any event, the latter of your statements is a factual judgment, in that one could derive it by inductive (or possibly even deductive) reasoning from primary observation, while the former is a value judgment and cannot be said to be true or false at all. ListenerXTalkerX 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- To hold a certain standard of all topics and articles on this wiki we should try to incorporate the most important definitions and viewpoints into articles that are about so basic things. The article as I saw it was an abomination - almost insulting to the reader.
- Now for the criticism from Godot, as far as I see it your falling for the colloquial understanding of truth which incorparates probability and equates a high probability to truth. That is not how it is used in philosophy and science. For example when we need a paternity test adn the result is "With 99.9999999% certainty is Carl the th father of Carla", Carla won't say "With 99.9999999% certainty you're my dad and I love you." she will just short it "You're my dad and I love you." Even if there is a slight chance of failure, the probability is so low that we ignore it. But that is not the understanding of truth that is in question here. --★uːʤɱ pirate 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with WfG's idea of fact, but not truth. She's not falling for anything. Truth is a far thornier issue. There are multiple meanings of "fact" that depend on context. WfG's is certainly a common one - "fact" as a reality or "true fact" as something that's accepted by agreement or has been directly observed in some manner. A "fact" can also be something that's asserted to be true without having yet had its truth value tested, as it's sometimes used in the law. A fact can also be something that's accepted by agreement solely for purposes of argument (arguendo) without regard to its truth value, such that its rhetorical purposes is solely to test a proposition, make a point, explore a hypothetical, etc.
22:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which makes me think, would you mind writing something up what "truth" means in law? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- The only legal definition of truth is a negation. "that which is not a lie". what is a lie? that which can be proven to be not true. it's very circular. but generally the oath you *actually* give, as opposed to "do you promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothign but the truth" is "do you sware or affirm that the testimony you are about to give comports to the facts and identifies teh facts as you best understand them". it's quite different than "truth". why? cause give a statistian enough room, and they can prove anything as "truth", but that doesn't mean it's true or a fact.En attendant Godot 00:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The only legal definition of truth is a negation. "that which is not a lie". what is a lie? that which can be proven to be not true. it's very circular. but generally the oath you *actually* give, as opposed to "do you promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothign but the truth" is "do you sware or affirm that the testimony you are about to give comports to the facts and identifies teh facts as you best understand them". it's quite different than "truth". why? cause give a statistian enough room, and they can prove anything as "truth", but that doesn't mean it's true or a fact.
- Which makes me think, would you mind writing something up what "truth" means in law? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with WfG's idea of fact, but not truth. She's not falling for anything. Truth is a far thornier issue. There are multiple meanings of "fact" that depend on context. WfG's is certainly a common one - "fact" as a reality or "true fact" as something that's accepted by agreement or has been directly observed in some manner. A "fact" can also be something that's asserted to be true without having yet had its truth value tested, as it's sometimes used in the law. A fact can also be something that's accepted by agreement solely for purposes of argument (arguendo) without regard to its truth value, such that its rhetorical purposes is solely to test a proposition, make a point, explore a hypothetical, etc.
- The particular philosophy to which you refer is also known as bullshit in many circles. But, in any event, the latter of your statements is a factual judgment, in that one could derive it by inductive (or possibly even deductive) reasoning from primary observation, while the former is a value judgment and cannot be said to be true or false at all.
- Truth is not an all or nothing thing, Robeldo. A fact is true. Truth may not be, depending on whose truth it is. If "truth" were only applied to facts, it would be one and the same, but it's not. as i said, truth is applied to the interpretation of those facts. "The team played great" (an opinion, but also truth) is not something that can be factually proven. "We would not have won if the pitcher had not had that shut out in the 9th". reasonable, plausable, and truthful. but not a fact. This is pretty basic philo 101 stuff... i'm sure you've addressed it somewhere.
- What the sweet mary fuck are you on about? How can a fact be "proven and concrete" without a positive truth value? --Robledo (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, talk to any lawyer about what happened to *that*. "did you murder your wife", "No" (but i did torture her and if she died, well....). "Do you know the way to santa fe"? "no", (I know many ways, none of which is *the* way). That's why I'm dubious that "truth" is so concrete as this article seems to present. but what do i know. there's a reason I did not go for a Philo degree. to hard on the mind.--
Hi, I don't visit this site very often, but I noticed that LiberalDeceit is currently a redirect for this page. Wouldn't it be a better idea to give it its own page, similar to the LiberalBias page? Even just redirecting it to LiberalBias instead might work better. It's just that the current setup is confusing and unhelpful for people who don't know the "the facts don't agree with me, LIBERAL DECEIT!" talking point. 67.119.192.24 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
... and Gödel[edit]
Today's fun thought: can one prove the existence of objective truth? Today's probably less fun thought: can one prove one's definition of truth in its entirety? PacWalker 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)