• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Theories of Truth

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
[Note: I have posted something very similar to this somewhere on MBTICentral before; this is a rewritten version.]

Suppose that a scientist is searching for theories which correspond to the facts, and by convention he labels such theories 'true.' One day a philosopher asks the scientist whether he has succeeded. Although the scientist has discovered some useful theories, each has its problems and he does not think any are true. But the scientist is then told by the philosopher that his theories must be true. He is then convinced by the philosopher that a theory is not true because it corresponds to the facts, but because it has instrumental value. Disabused of the correspondence theory of truth, the scientist now adopts to the pragmatic theory of truth. Prior to his conversion, the scientist’s search for truth meant searching for theories which correspond to the facts, but now that is replaced by a search for theories with instrumental value.

But is this a sensible move by the scientist? The original aim of the scientist's search was the discovery of theories which correspond to the facts, and even though he may no longer label such theories 'true,' nothing else need change.

Suppose that the scientist lost his car keys and searched thoroughly to no avail. The philosopher then convinces him that the word 'key' really refers to a writing utensil, and therefore, advises that he search for that instead. Now disabused of the locking theory of key, the scientist adopts the writing theory of key, and begins searching for a writing utensil. Shortly afterward the scientist declares that he has found his key, and triumphantly uses it to write a letter to his car's manufacturer asking how to turn the engine on.

Words do not have real or essential meanings. For example, the word 'post' can refer to many different things--including a piece of wood set upright into the ground as a marker, a starting point at a racetrack, or an electronic message sent to a forum. But do these alternative interpretations constitute theories of post? Would it be sensible to argue about which theory of post is correct? The meaning a word is not a matter of discovering its real or essential meaning, but of negotiating a conventional use and interpretation. And although this principle is uncontroversial regarding words like 'key' and 'post,' it is often forgotten when discussing the word 'truth.'
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Science seeks to remove untruth (a loaded term) through empirical inquiry. Science is fundamentally concerned with identifying data and applying perceived premise. To this end, one could argue that science is truth -- until it becomes untrue.

Philosophy is the study of reason as it applies to existence. How to think. Philosophy is less concerned with the application of utility (central division between philosophy and science) than the information, as an ideal. Information is without premise. Without meaning. Philosophy seeks to logically unravel our bias to apply extraneous meaning to information. Truth is artificial; without context.

By asking "who is right", you are begging a conclusion that runs contrary to your message (or conforms to it). Asking the poster to identify himself as either "Philosopher" or "Scientist".
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
The goal of science is to predict through careful observation, and to be able to predict events in a given context is to know the truth to some extent. The goal of philosophy is to reason the truth through logical inquiry, and to be able to reason the truth logically one may be able to predict. (I haven't taken philosophy yet but this is how I understand it)
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Call the scientist 'person A', and call the philosopher 'person B', then forget that I ever mentioned any scientist of philosopher.
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
Why, are you with him?

If you're thinking Gettier, then you're thinking along the wrong lines.

what, you're telling me this in no way links with the classic tripartite of knowledge?
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
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..
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
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.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.'
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
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?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
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?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
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.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 
Top