User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 44

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    What are you trying to get at? That person A's approach is correct and that person B's approach is incorrect? That rather than searching for theories that have instrumental value we should just deal with the slightly flawed theories that have been discovered through observation even though they may not be the full truth? I'm not fully grasping the link between the 3rd and 4th paragraphs..

  2. #12
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Yes, I am telling you that. If it did, then I would have written something entirely different.
    but of course it does. take the example of the scientist again. by his account, newton's physics are true'. by the philosopher's account it is not. what's the difference? newton's theory is not 'true' in its pure sense, hence the tripartite is not complete. is it odd though that the scientist cannot claim that he has knowledge? yes it is. sounds VERY tripartite to me.

  3. #13
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    There are many theories of truth: correspondence theory, pragmatic theory, consensus theory, coherence theory, constructivist theory, etc.

    Wikipedia says, 'The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.'
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #14
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    but of course it does. take the example of the scientist again. by his account, newton's physics are true'. by the philosopher's account it is not. what's the difference? newton's theory is not 'true' in its pure sense, hence the tripartite is not complete. is it odd though that the scientist cannot claim that he has knowledge? yes it is. sounds VERY tripartite to me.
    According to the scientist, his theories, although useful, are not true. According to the philosopher, however, the scientist's theories must be true, because they are useful.

    It is not relevent whether either the sicentist or philosopher have knowledge of anything.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #15
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    While it's true that "truth" is just a word that gains meaning by convention, I don't see why that's so interesting or conversation-worthy. I can call my printer a "truth" and ask you why the black isn't showing well. And sure, it's a nice thing to mention if people are trying to debate how to define a theory of truth, but is it really not that obvious?

  6. #16
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    While it's true that "truth" is just a word that gains meaning by convention, I don't see why that's so interesting or conversation-worthy. I can call my printer a "truth" and ask you why the black isn't showing well. And sure, it's a nice thing to mention if people are trying to debate how to define a theory of truth, but is it really not that obvious?
    You would think so.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    A truth in science regards its ability to predict events. A truth in philosophy regards its logical irrefutability in describing the nature of things. They have separate purposes and their 'truths' apply only in their given context. Truth manifests itself in a variety of ways that don't function together completely. Am I on the right track?

  8. #18
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    A truth in science regards its ability to predict events. A truth in philosophy regards its logical irrefutability in describing the nature of things. They have separate purposes and their 'truths' apply only in their given context. Truth manifests itself in a variety of ways that don't function together completely. Am I on the right track?
    Call the scientist 'person A', and call the philosopher 'person B', then forget that I ever mentioned any scientist of philosopher.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Call the scientist 'person A', and call the philosopher 'person B', then forget that I ever mentioned any scientist of philosopher.
    Ya but thats too vague to have any meaning at all, it needs to be applied to a given context. Even if Person A is not called a Scientist, he is still taking the scientific approach, it makes no difference.

  10. #20
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Ya but thats too vague to have any meaning at all, it needs to be applied to a given context. Even if Person A is not called a Scientist, he is still taking the scientific approach, it makes no difference.
    His approach is irrelevent. All that is relevent are his ideas, and whether or not they are true.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. Hap's Theory of Dynamic Type
    By Haphazard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 01:42 PM
  2. The theory of enlightenment
    By ThatGirl in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 10:39 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Theory of Dominae Intuitus
    By Martian Manifesto in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 09-21-2008, 05:23 PM
  4. Moment of Truth on Fox
    By CzeCze in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 02:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO