The Varieties of Truth

[Nicodemus]

'Truth' is a five letter word beginning with 'T' and ending with 'h'. Do you want to talk about that? I doubt it.

No, it is already done.

 

[ygolo]

Welcome!

The purpose of this thread is to survey the various conceptions of truth that are ingrained in your minds. In order to participate and win a rabbit, please go by the following steps:

1. Look into yourself.
2. Feel, think about, grasp at the idea of truth that you find in there.
3. Ponder the best way to put it into words.
4. Put it into words.
5. Submit it.

It is neither necessary nor requested that you think about how truth should be, could be, or is defined by others. It is all about you.

I hope your answer will in itself answer the following question; if it does not, however, please answer: According to your conception of truth, what is required for statement 'x'* to be true?

* 'x' could be anything, for instance, 'Yeshua of Nazareth died on the cross'.

At one point, I spent considerable time thinking about truth and had satisfied myself that I had thought enough about it. Perhaps that needs some reconsideration.

Descriptions using words

The basic problem we have is that we are using words to describe things, and in that sense we will be limited. I could perhaps use diagrams or pictures, but even that is limited. I could then perhaps add links to videos and if we met in person perhaps take you places, have you participate in activities, and feel and smell things as well. But even with that full richness of experience I doubt I can transfer my own thoughts to you. Similarly, I don't believe you can transfer your thoughts to me.

But you have posed a question in words, asking for an answer in words, and this is a forum consisting mostly of words, so I am limited (for the most part) to respond to your words in the medium of written language.

Truth Values of Statements

So first, I must interpret your words, and guess what it is you are asking about. "Truth" has many meanings, and my response to you will depend greatly on the meaning you intended us to address.

From the statements in the post I quoted, it seems like you wanted to address the truth value of statements, and that you specifically want me to make statements about the truth values of statements.

Formal Systems

It is my belief, that in this endeavor, precision greatly aids clarity, and in that sense, the field of formal logic lends the greatest common ground on which to build a discussion. However, in an informal setting like this forum, along with the lack of support for Tex, I think going that route may not be that wise.

Nevertheless, I am sure you are aware of the problems with formal logic and deduction systems. One main result being the fact that complete and consistent logical systems of sufficient complexity cannot be made.

Correspondence with Reality

Another large problem, related to my thoughts on words and descriptions in general, is that descriptions are not reality itself. So when we make statements about the world, we imply a correspondence with what we believe is real.

You, of course have your own beliefs about what is real, and your own way of forming descriptions that correspond to that.

Communication

So far, I have described many things that will make what your requested very difficult, but have seemingly done very little with regards to how I decide upon the truth value of statements.

However, I do, in a sense, anytime I am confronted with statements, go through a similar thought process as I have outlined so far. That is, a reflection on the words of the statement and the meaning intended by the person making the statement, with the realization of the limits of language, logic, perceptions of reality, and communication.

Things can go in many directions from that point depending on my interpretation of the statement and my understanding of how it related to a perception of reality translatable between the maker of the statement and myself.

Actually Evaluating Truth

Suppose that I have interpreted the statement to have the following characteristics:

1. It is a statement about an aspect of reality that I recognize to be real
2. It is a statement that makes sense to me(in that I can interpret its meaning with respect to my perception of reality).

Then, I feel confident that it is a statement I can evaluate regarding it's truth value.

However, I then need to decide whether the statement is mean to be an approximation to my perception of reality, or if it is meant to be an exact statement.

The quantifiers associated with the statement is my cue regarding whether the statement is "approximate" or "binary".

If they are essentially qualitative, and make use words like "most", "generally", "some", "a few", "none" or "all", I treat them as "binary" statements, and will try to decide if the statement is either true or false.

When the statement is quantitative and uses numbers or equations, I generally think of them as approximate, and I will judge them as approximations to true statements, and evaluate an "error bound" regarding the statement. Note that these approximate statements can have a qualitative qualifier that essentially confines their "domain of application". If they have such a qualifier, I prefer to evaluate the error bounds in those domains (perhaps others as well, but usually not).

Binary Statements

If the statement is of the form "For all x, P(x)" or "For no x, P(x)", I will either look for a counter examples in my perceptions of reality or look for a deductive proof from other statements I have currently accepted as true. I am willing to consult other sources during this evaluation process (which also tend to make statements that need to be evaluated), and often do. I am also willing to do my own tests.

Statements of the form "For some x, P(x)" or "For a few x, P(x)" are fairly easy for me to accept as true. All I need are the requisite number of examples from my perception of reality. If I do not find such examples, I do not say the these statements are false, but my propensity to assume the falsehood of these statements with regard to my thinking in general increases with the effort put in while not finding enough examples. Again, I am willing to consult other sources, do my own experiments, etc.

With regards to statements of the form "For most x, P(x)" or "Generally for x, P(x)" I admit truth values of these statement generally more provisionally that I do other binary statements. The truth value is based on the frequency of the statement being true in my perceived ontology. Again I often consult other sources or conduct experiments on my own.

Approximate Statements

In principle, all I have to do is to check how close, in my perception of reality, within the appropriate domains of application these statements are to actual values. Again, often, I have to consult other sources or do some experiments on my own. This often takes a lot of work.

But one additional avenue of evaluation is that I can check the consistency of one set of such approximate statements with other sets, as long as their domains of application overlap.

Caveats
This is a somewhat idealized description of what I do regarding evaluating truth. It is, in principle, what I would like to do.

However, most of the statements I come across are binary statements in the form "For most x, P(x)" or "Generally for x, P(x)" and I hold the truth values of these statements very provisionally.

I prefer statements of any of the other binary forms I mentioned, or the approximate forms. These statements tend to last significantly longer as things I hold true or approximately true, but there are rather few of them. Also, many statements of these forms that I have come across have taken too much effort to evaluate, and I have forgotten what they were before I decided on their truth values, error bounds, or domains of application.

Wow. That is the longest post I have done in a while. Thanks Nico.

 

[Avocado]

Truth, I believe, is unknowable.

 

[Mole]

Really the title should be The Varieties of Religious Experience and this was answered by William James in 1901.

Fortunately we have discovered a better way of determining the truth with the Scientific Method.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If anyone here claims that objective reality doesn't exist, I'm going to throw small virtual rocks at them. Why not? It can't actually exist. It's just my opinion that the small rocks I am throwing at you exist! You can create your own reality! Maybe I am just an illusion, so you do not have to worry about me throwing rocks at you.

(This isn't the same thing as claiming that I have a superior grasp on objective reality, or that I know more of it.)


I would argue that true morality necessitates a belief in an objective reality. Otherwise, there's no legitimate reason why other people should matter.

 

[Nicodemus]

I would argue that true morality necessitates a belief in an objective reality. Otherwise, there's no legitimate reason why other people should matter.

Beside the obvious, actual reason: that they do, to you. The foundations of morality are instincts and emotions. Reason just rationalizes them.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Beside the obvious, actual reason: that they do, to you. The foundations of morality are instincts and emotions. Reason just rationalizes them.

No objective reality =

Other people aren't real man.... i can just lie to them whenever I feel like it. I'm the only one that actually exists and the only one that actually matters.

 

[Nicodemus]

No objective reality =

Other people aren't real man.... i can just lie to them whenever I feel like it. I'm the only one that actually exists and the only one that actually matters.

Regarding this point, it makes no difference whether you believe there is objective reality or not. Just ask one of our psychopaths.

Even if you believed other people were not existent, just figments of your imagination, you would still need to fight your instincts and slowly learn to treat them contrary to how you would if they were real. It is the same way with actual people.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Regarding this point, it makes no difference whether you believe there is objective reality or not. Just ask one of our psychopaths.

Even if you believed other people were not existent, just figments of your imagination, you would still need to fight your instincts and slowly learn to treat them contrary to how you would if they were real. It is the same way with actual people.

You are arguing that people stay in line because of their instincts, not because of what they believe about reality? Is this a correct interpretation?

 

[Nicodemus]

You are arguing that people stay in line because of their instincts, not because of what they believe about reality? Is this a correct interpretation?

Mostly, yes, as most people seldom doubt the apparent nature of reality. There are learned rules too, of course.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Mostly, yes, as most people seldom doubt the apparent nature of reality. There are learned rules too, of course.

This sounds arrogant, but it is hard for me to believe that. That kind of life seems inconceivable to me, to quote Wallace Shawn. And yet, observation supports it.

 

[93JC]

There's THE TRUTH



and

The Truth!

 

[Chthonic]

It's a perception only. Truth is what you want to believe.

 

[Mole]

For 200,000 years we knew the truth - we knew we were the centre of the Universe. Look, we said, the very Sun goes round us every day, and look, we are the centre of the Gods' attentions, and finally the centre of the One God's attention.

And just as every child goes through the narcissistic phase believing they are the centre of the universe, so we believed we were the centre of the Universe.

But the values of evidence and reason of the Enlightenment led us to question our belief that we are the centre of the Universe.

Evidence and reason applied to astronomy showed us we are not the centre of the Universe. We now know the centre is everywhere. In other words, where ever we are in the Universe, we have the illusion we are at the centre.

And interestingly we still believe our size is at the centre of the Universe. But Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have shown us that size is simply parochial. We are still narcissistic about our size.

But we now know that the very big or the very small are so far out of our perception of size we can't even imagine them, although we can delineate them with great accuracy.

Narcissism is a necessary phase for small children to pass through, but in grownups, narcissism is a neurosis.

 

[Mole]

It's a perception only. Truth is what you want to believe.

Some of us believe the TV is broadcasting signals that control our mind. It this the truth or is this psychosis?

 

[Chthonic]

Some of us believe the TV is broadcasting signals that control our mind. It this the truth or is this psychosis?

It is the truth for them. Their belief affects their own life, no-one elses. So if they want to throw their TV set on the street its up to them. I'm quite tired of your psychology rants clogging up my quotes though. Goodbye Mole.

 

[Cellmold]

Truth is the most accurate statement of reality that can be agreed upon using evidence for the context of that truth.

 

[Firebird 8118]

Sometimes, the truth is something that can be difficult to handle - especially in cases where a person who has forgotten his/her past is blissfully unaware that he/she is living a lie. In those cases, it would be better to remain lost in sweet idealistic dreams, than to face a bitter truth that could shatter the person completely.

 

[Mole]

It is the truth for them. Their belief affects their own life, no-one elses. So if they want to throw their TV set on the street its up to them. I'm quite tired of your psychology rants clogging up my quotes though. Goodbye Mole.

In fact it is a psychotic delusion. It is not the truth.

Those who suffer from a psychosis do suffer. And those who call their psychotic delusions the truth, do not relieve their suffering, but increase it.

To call a psychotic delusion the truth is an act of psychological cruelty.

 

[Mole]

I'm quite tired of your psychology rants clogging up my quotes

Typology Central is a site devoted to psychology. And the first rule of psychology is do no harm. So those who come here to inflict psychological cruelty on the vulnerable will be vigourously opposed.