Thread: What is truth ?

Id like to hear your views:

What IS truth ?

Truth is that which has an equall in reality besides itself.

Truth is how it is
"Earth is flat" Thats not the truth but a lie
"Earth is round" this is the truth

Read my signature. :P

aslongest the meaning of it aint that god exists or anything simular that aint 100% wrong just about 90%

The truth is:
This is a science forum. 8)

To be a philosopher, and someone megabrain hates all the more:

Truth is something that is unreachable, yet immense in value. For if truth is found, one has found the answer to everything in that pure form of truth. Humans and other conscious beings have sought truth since the beginning of their times, yet a pure form of it is never within reach.

Indeed, for if truth is to be found, perfection needs to be reached. People delude themselves into thinking that "facts" are truth, or that faith is truth, or that their subjective feelings and views are truth. In reality, they only slip away from a simple "truth" that has been known for a long time: Nothing is true, it's only what you believe true. Ultimate truth, for subjective beings, cannot exist.

But this provides a paradox, for if one assumes that is truth, does it not imply that it is not given how humans are subjective creatures?

The above continues on for a looooooooonnnnnnnnggggg time. And it appears I've written it a bit worse than I intended. Eh, well, you'll have to suffer through it. :P

Exactly my point!

Originally Posted by The other duelist...

Truth is something that is unreachable, yet immense in value. For if truth is found, one has found the answer to everything in that pure form of truth.

I have discovered the truth, my cup is [at the time of writing] to the left of my keyboard.

Who can say it better than good ol' Nietzsche?

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

Originally Posted by The other duelist...

I have discovered the truth, my cup is [at the time of writing] to the left of my keyboard.

Or is it? Is that cup there? or is that only you believing it to be? Or perhaps it is there, but you are not? So how can you say it's to the left of you or your keyboard? Perhaps it's not even at your keyboard, but in a different place altogether.

Looks like a load of Bollocks to me, I'll bet he wasn't a Yorkshire lad. That's my whole point about philosophers they are simply unable to express themselves to other ordinary mortals, It's like a competition, '400 words where 10 will do'.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Looks like a load of Bollocks to me, I'll bet he wasn't a Yorkshire lad. That's my whole point about philosophers they are simply unable to express themselves to other ordinary mortals, It's like a competition, '400 words where 10 will do'.

That's because you puny mortals cannot comprehend the depths of our abilities and mental wisdom!

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Looks like a load of Bollocks to me, I'll bet he wasn't a Yorkshire lad. That's my whole point about philosophers they are simply unable to express themselves to other ordinary mortals, It's like a competition, '400 words where 10 will do'.

I'm from Yorkshire, is that where you are from/are Megabrain?

Yep, sounds like what a true philospher might respond with. I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Yep, sounds like what a true philospher might respond with. I rest my case.

You admit defeat. 8)

Born in Skipton, moved south at age 3.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Looks like a load of Bollocks to me, I'll bet he wasn't a Yorkshire lad.

au contraire It's we Lancastrians that have no bollocks about them.....ah wait, that came out wrong. Ha!

That's my whole point about philosophers they are simply unable to express themselves.

Again, to the contrary. Philosophy is all about expressing ideas in the clearest, least ambiguous form, just like mathematics

OK then, it's one all! :wink:

Truth is when what we subjectively conceive in our minds compliments objective reality.

Truth is what is not lie.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Exactly my point!

Originally Posted by The other duelist...

Truth is something that is unreachable, yet immense in value. For if truth is found, one has found the answer to everything in that pure form of truth.

I have discovered the truth, my cup is [at the time of writing] to the left of my keyboard.

typing, not writing
my (as a part of you?)
the cup I own?

continuing until you go nuts. As mentioned

Even the statement "he is not" is a logical falacy. But I guess you knew that, right?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Exactly my point!

Originally Posted by The other duelist...

Truth is something that is unreachable, yet immense in value. For if truth is found, one has found the answer to everything in that pure form of truth.

I have discovered the truth, my cup is [at the time of writing] to the left of my keyboard.

Actually megabrain, that is not the truth

Your cup may indeed have been a couple of inches to the left of your keyboard, but I would bet that it was also roughly 24,000 miles to the right of your keyboard too!

24,000 miles from my keyboard in any direction leo is somewhere out in space... :wink:

If the Earth was flat then yes. Okay then if you want to play that game then your coffee cup would have been about 100 billion light years to the right of your keyboard (or however far it is in the universe you have to travel to almost get back to where you started) 8)

Originally Posted by leohopkins

If the Earth was flat then yes. Okay then if you want to play that game then your coffee cup would have been about 100 billion light years to the right of your keyboard (or however far it is in the universe you have to travel to almost get back to where you started) 8)

what?

How on earth do you get that? travel 24000 miles in a straight line from where you are now and you'll be in space! in whatever direction, the earth is only about 7800 miles in diameter.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by leohopkins

If the Earth was flat then yes. Okay then if you want to play that game then your coffee cup would have been about 100 billion light years to the right of your keyboard (or however far it is in the universe you have to travel to almost get back to where you started) 8)

what?

How on earth do you get that? travel 24000 miles in a straight line from where you are now and you'll be in space! in whatever direction, the earth is only about 7800 miles in diameter.

OH DEAR !! (Slumps his head down and hit hits the desk ask he sighs)

So If I walk for 24,000 miles ill end up in space ??

And what does the diameter of the earth have to do with circumnavigating the globe. The earth is roughly 24,000 miles in cirumference. Or do you SERIOUSLY believe we live on the back of a turtle? :wink:

Originally Posted by anand_kapadia

Truth is what is not lie.

So what is a lie ?

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Originally Posted by anand_kapadia

Truth is what is not lie.

So what is a lie ?

something that is not the truth, obviously 8)

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by leohopkins

If the Earth was flat then yes. Okay then if you want to play that game then your coffee cup would have been about 100 billion light years to the right of your keyboard (or however far it is in the universe you have to travel to almost get back to where you started) 8)

what?

How on earth do you get that? travel 24000 miles in a straight line from where you are now and you'll be in space! in whatever direction, the earth is only about 7800 miles in diameter.

OH DEAR !! (Slumps his head down and hit hits the desk ask he sighs)

So If I walk for 24,000 miles ill end up in space ??

And what does the diameter of the earth have to do with circumnavigating the globe. The earth is roughly 24,000 miles in cirumference. Or do you SERIOUSLY believe we live on the back of a turtle? :wink:

Sorry mate I live in a three dimensional world where a straight line is a straight line it is not a curve around the earth. I obviously failed to note you are a flatlander!

Light ALWAYS travels in a straight line, does it not ?

Incidentally people, as you can see from Megabrain's perspective a straight line is a straight line. MY argument is that light always travels in a straight line but appears to bend around and object with mass, as gravity has warped space, but it is still essentially a straight line, so yes we can walk in a straight line and end up circumnavigating the globe. Infact, with the curvature of the universe if you travel for long enough you will end up right back where you started, so you could say that there are no such things as "straight lines".

Who is right ? Megabrain or me ?

The answer is, neither or us and both of us.

TRUTH, people is RELATIVE !!

truth is something expressed by someone (the sky is BLUE!) that the other someone interprets as the truth (your right! the thing you call the sky above us is BLUE!)

the person's brain interprets what sky means and visualizes what blue looks like. then the person, in his mind, applies the color to the object. once that is in his brain, he looks up, and compares the image in his mind to the image he is seeing. if they match he interprets it as true.


THIS IS PURELY A PSHYCOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

On average the sky is black for almost the same amount of time it is 'blue', in the UK the sky is usually grey!

The sky has no color in fact the molecules of air merely scatter the blue light from the sun. When the sun is very low in the sky almost all the blue light is scattered so that when the rays finally get to you, there is no blue light left and the sun appears an orange color. From space the sun appears it's real colour that is white, and not the yellow we see. And that's the truth!

Originally Posted by Megabrain

On average the sky is black for almost the same amount of time it is 'blue', in the UK the sky is usually grey!

The sky has no color in fact the molecules of air merely scatter the blue light from the sun. When the sun is very low in the sky almost all the blue light is scattered so that when the rays finally get to you, there is no blue light left and the sun appears an orange color. From space the sun appears it's real colour that is white, and not the yellow we see. And that's the truth!

fine, get all scientific about it. i guess thats what this forum is for

You started it - 120Volts... Pah Humbug!!

i got asked this question at school today, had no idea of the answer.
so i had to ask,"How would you know if i was answering you truthfully?" (with an unfortunate stutter )

but in all seriousness if your asking what truth is then that would imply that you don't know, or are asking a rhetorical question, in which case you can't know if someone gives you a truthfull answer. no?

and second of all i found this in my maths textbook.
H(t)= 12+2.4sin (360(t-80)/365)
where H(t) us the number of daylight hours in the northern hemisphere and t is the number of days since December 31...hows that for technical. (any northern hemisphere dwellers able to tell me whether this is a valid equation)

Originally Posted by wallaby

i got asked this question at school today, had no idea of the answer.
so i had to ask,"How would you know if i was answering you truthfully?" (with an unfortunate stutter )

but in all seriousness if your asking what truth is then that would imply that you don't know, or are asking a rhetorical question, in which case you can't know if someone gives you a truthfull answer. no?

and second of all i found this in my maths textbook.
H(t)= 12+2.4sin (360(t-80)/365)
where H(t) us the number of daylight hours in the northern hemisphere and t is the number of days since December 31...hows that for technical. (any northern hemisphere dwellers able to tell me whether this is a valid equation)

Looks wrong to me, it does not take your position into account, if you were at the noth pole it's dark through January/Feb, if just north of the equator then you get daylight - ie it needs lattitude at least

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Looks wrong to me, it does not take your position into account, if you were at the noth pole it's dark through January/Feb, if just north of the equator then you get daylight - ie it needs lattitude at least

indeed it would. didn't think of that.

4 me, the simplest explanation of truth is what we perceive and/or accept to be "true".

Originally Posted by Quake365

4 me, the simplest explanation of truth is what we perceive and/or accept to be "true".

Socrates would not be satisfied. What is the true meaning of truth?

DaBOB,

That's the whole point. No one can make you accept something they consider "true". We all have to find our own answers, and in this process, we decide what we want to believe is true. I may be able to influence your decision about what you consider to be true, but in the end I cannot tell you what your truth is.

Originally Posted by Quake365

DaBOB,

That's the whole point. No one can make you accept something they consider "true". We all have to find our own answers, and in this process, we decide what we want to believe is true. I may be able to influence your decision about what you consider to be true, but in the end I cannot tell you what your truth is.

What I mean is: what is truth when every example of truth fits with its definition. We can all think that we know our own truths but these aren't truth but, instead our personal interpretations of examples of truth. They aren't truth itself.

Does that make sense?

DaBOB,

That would depend on what definition of truth you chose to use. It would also depend on how possible it would be to fit every example of truth into a single definition. If we all think that we know our own truths, who could possibly answer this question other than your chosen higher power? And if someone could define the "true" definition of truth, would that not be someone's personal interpretation?

Originally Posted by Quake365

DaBOB,

That would depend on what definition of truth you chose to use. It would also depend on how possible it would be to fit every example of truth into a single definition. If we all think that we know our own truths, who could possibly answer this question other than your chosen higher power? And if someone could define the "true" definition of truth, would that not be someone's personal interpretation?

Exactly. This is why philosphy is known for not being able to find solid answers. Is it worth finding a universal meaning for truth? Also, I do not think only a single person could find such a definition.

Leo, I take it you are serious with this question so I will give what I hope will be some insight. First, some scientific background:

The illusory nature of scientific "truth" was discovered back in the 1920s and 1930s. Among the first to discover it was the philosopher of History, Benedetto Croce and the linguist, Ludwig Wittgenstein. In 1921, they explained that history and language cannot picture reality. In 1925, Alfred North Whitehead discovered it in philosophy and mathematics. In 1927, Werner Heisenberg discovered it in physics, and in 1929, Karl Mannheim in sociology. Finally, historians, Carl Becker, R. Collingwood and Charles A. Beard all found it out between 1931 and 1935. All this was facilitated by Albert Einstein’s discovery of the relative nature of everything in 1905.

What it seems to boil down to is that we are finite in an infinite world and can never know everything about anything. We can understand process but never completely gauge the whole cause and effect process of anything so well as to forever know it as "Truth." We will always be increasing the accuracy of what we believe. If this subject really interests you, I suggest you look at item #12 in the APPENDIX to my webpage.


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

The uncertainty principle. It is impossible to determine the location and momentum of a partical at the same time. The closer you get to finding one the farther you get from finding the other. A principle that can be applied to anything, seeing as how we are made up of these particles. I would suggest that "truth" is knowing both of these at the same time.

Truth is everything that is not a lie

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Who can say it better than good ol' Nietzsche?

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

He also wrote this, which I'm taking out of context perhaps because when I opened the book the other day and my eyes rested upon this one single line, it was all as if in a dream: Yet, tell me brothers, is not the most wonderful of all things most clearly demonstrated?

This was an amazing moment for me because I had been explicitly asking too many questions about somebody... From that moment on many more questions surrounding that person started to make... sense. But it all boiled down to something clearly demonstrated. My whole being reacted to that one thing.

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Something that is deliberately falsified?

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Something that is deliberately falsified?

So unless something is deliberately falsified it is truth? :wink:

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Something that is deliberately falsified?

So unless something is deliberately falsified it is truth? :wink:

I wasn't speaking about truth; I was describing a lie. Both are different concepts and not necessarily antithetical.

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Something that is deliberately falsified?

So unless something is deliberately falsified it is truth? :wink:

I wasn't speaking about truth; I was describing a lie. Both are different concepts and not necessarily antithetical.

Nevyn said that "truth" is everything that is not a "lie". You said a "lie" is something that is deliberately falsified. Based on these two assumptions I can only conclude that "truth" is anything that is not deliberately falsified.

I do not agree with this. I am just asking the questions. So is Nevyn's concept of truth a lie or otherwise incorrect? Or is your concept of a lie incorrect?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Something that is deliberately falsified?

So unless something is deliberately falsified it is truth? :wink:

I wasn't speaking about truth; I was describing a lie. Both are different concepts and not necessarily antithetical.

Nevyn said that "truth" is everything that is not a "lie". You said a "lie" is something that is deliberately falsified. Based on these two assumptions I can only conclude that "truth" is anything that is not deliberately falsified.

I do not agree with this. I am just asking the questions. So is Nevyn's concept of truth a lie or otherwise incorrect? Or is your concept of a lie incorrect?

Nice to know i sparked of such an argument 8) :wink: , Diliberately falseified sounds like it was forced that way and could be incorrect. A lie is a false statement which can be proven to be false

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by ad . hoc

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Truth is everything that is not a lie

O.K. then. Now we must know: what is a lie?

Something that is deliberately falsified?

So unless something is deliberately falsified it is truth? :wink:

I wasn't speaking about truth; I was describing a lie. Both are different concepts and not necessarily antithetical.

Nevyn said that "truth" is everything that is not a "lie". You said a "lie" is something that is deliberately falsified. Based on these two assumptions I can only conclude that "truth" is anything that is not deliberately falsified.

I do not agree with this. I am just asking the questions. So is Nevyn's concept of truth a lie or otherwise incorrect? Or is your concept of a lie incorrect?

Nice to know i sparked of such an argument 8) :wink: , Diliberately falseified sounds like it was forced that way and could be incorrect. A lie is a false statement which can be proven to be false

Actaully Nevyn, I looked at a dictionary and the definition was much closer to ad . hoc's definition. I am not saying your definition is wrong but we have to come to a conclusion as to what lieing is if are are to find what truth isn't.

Even then we are still stuck trying to find what truth is, instead we will only know what it is not.

P.S.
These quote boxes are getting kinda cool looking.

i also got my definition from the dictionary

Well which definition should we use? Which one fully describes what a lie is? Or do we need to make our own?

yes an while we are at it why don't we re-wright the the entire dictionary

Why would we do that?

The question was: what is truth? You stated that it was everything that is not a lie but, obviously we cannot even agree on what that is. Remember we created language and thus it is up to us to know what it means.

Have we learned enough or shall we continue?

Can I suggest that the 'truth' is an accurate written, spoken or pictorial potrayal of an historic event.

My defintition of truth: Everything that is not a lie and can be proven so and that is a definate answer

This old thread has still come up with no answer other than a quote from Neitche that Truth does not exist.

In his time, that was known to be the case and the most brilliant minds in the various fields recognized that. Since then, scientists have tended to forget and some still talk about science seeking "Truth."

Suppose I am standing on the threshold to my home. Am I "home" or "not home?" The classical logicist would say“that of two contradictory statements, one at least must be false.” Yet, neither statement is false. I am both “home” and “not home.” I am more home than not home, however. In other words, there is no “truth” here, only that one statement is more accurate than the other.

It is this way with everything. There is no absolute truth, only more or less accurate statements or understanding The Earth is round but it is not exactly round.

What scientists seek is not “Truth” but the most accurate explanation for something that we can come up with. That is the way we have always progressed and the only way it is possible to progress.

“Truth” is an old religion concept. The word should not be used by scientists. Evolution is not “true” but it is by far the most accurate explanation of life origins.

Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com T

Originally Posted by Nevyn

My defintition of truth: Everything that is not a lie and can be proven so and that is a definate answer

Nah, you know what you had for lunch last tuesday but do you think you could prove it?

If something is the 'truth' then who needs to prove it? other may consider it 'dubious' or even false but it would not alter the fact that it is the truth.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Nevyn

My defintition of truth: Everything that is not a lie and can be proven so and that is a definate answer

Nah, you know what you had for lunch last tuesday but do you think you could prove it?

If something is the 'truth' then who needs to prove it? other may consider it 'dubious' or even false but it would not alter the fact that it is the truth.

yes, i can prove it, just look at my excrement, or my blood

Originally Posted by charles brough

Suppose I am standing on the threshold to my home. Am I "home" or "not home?" The classical logicist would say“that of two contradictory statements, one at least must be false.” Yet, neither statement is false. I am both “home” and “not home.” I am more home than not home, however. In other words, there is no “truth” here, only that one statement is more accurate than the other.

yes, but is it true that you are standing on the threshold to your home?

that example doesnt work to prove your point because if you weren't on the threshold and instead you were accross it and in your home then when you said I am "home" that would be true.

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Nevyn

My defintition of truth: Everything that is not a lie and can be proven so and that is a definate answer

Nah, you know what you had for lunch last tuesday but do you think you could prove it?

If something is the 'truth' then who needs to prove it? other may consider it 'dubious' or even false but it would not alter the fact that it is the truth.

yes, i can prove it, just look at my excrement, or my blood

Could have been from Wednesday...

Charles. what you say is not true for I am a scientist and I am seeking truth. Some feel hopeless and thus give up. I say: why be hopeless?

Originally Posted by Nevyn

My defintition of truth: Everything that is not a lie and can be proven so and that is a definate answer

There is a reason that "truth" and "proof" are not the same word. Truth, so far, is unatainable whereas proof is attainable. Proof uses evidence, trial and error, observation, etc. to come to the conclusion that something can be accepted as true but has the potential of being untrue; even if we can not understand how.

I would suggest that truth is more perfect. Like Megabrain said, it would not need to be proven; it would be like using a flashlight to see the sun.

why not do like einstein did with light and darkness, and give
truth a new definition?

a lie is the absence of all truth. and thus, we have degrees of truth, going from 0, which is a complete lie, to infinity, in that we'll never reach absolute truth.
8)

Not bad I guess, but that is only what truth is not and not what it is.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Not bad I guess, but that is only what truth is not and not what it is.

is that --entirely-- true?
you might notice even in our sincerest truths, theres a grain of.. lie.

LUKE: "Obi-Wan, why didn't you tell me? - You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father"

BEN: "You father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I have told you was true... from a certain point of view."

LUKE: "A certain point of view?!"

BEN: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"

Originally Posted by dejawolf

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Not bad I guess, but that is only what truth is not and not what it is.

is that --entirely-- true?
you might notice even in our sincerest truths, theres a grain of.. lie.

I believe you are right. For perfection must include imperfection or it would not be prepaired for it.

Where does truth lie? (note juxtaposition)
What is the truth?

The truth lies in our heart.
The truth is what lies in our heart.

Dictionary definition:
Truth
n. That which is true. :wink:

i'm rather surprised that no-one has brought up the following definition of truth, considering this is a science forum : according to the scientific method, anything is considered true until it has been falsified - the larger the number of unsuccessful efforts to falsify a theory or claim, the greater the likelihood that the theory or claim approaches "objective" truth

Originally Posted by marnixR

i'm rather surprised that no-one has brought up the following definition of truth, considering this is a science forum : according to the scientific method, anything is considered true until it has been falsified - the larger the number of unsuccessful efforts to falsify a theory or claim, the greater the likelihood that the theory or claim approaches "objective" truth

Fine. Okay, but that only works in some occassions.

Okay, until recently Pluto was a planet. TRUE
Now its not. TRUE

People thought that the truth was that you could sail off the edge of the world, (until it was falsified) - but that doesnt mean that it was true BEFORE it was falsified.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Okay, until recently Pluto was a planet. TRUE
Now its not. TRUE

People thought that the truth was that you could sail off the edge of the world, (until it was falsified) - but that doesnt mean that it was true BEFORE it was falsified.

no - it just wasn't falsified before, so you couldn't be sure until it was

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Originally Posted by marnixR

i'm rather surprised that no-one has brought up the following definition of truth, considering this is a science forum : according to the scientific method, anything is considered true until it has been falsified - the larger the number of unsuccessful efforts to falsify a theory or claim, the greater the likelihood that the theory or claim approaches "objective" truth

Fine. Okay, but that only works in some occassions.

Okay, until recently Pluto was a planet. TRUE
Now its not. TRUE

People thought that the truth was that you could sail off the edge of the world, (until it was falsified) - but that doesnt mean that it was true BEFORE it was falsified.

I think we are mixing something up. When speaking of words such as "planet" it is us who decides truth. A planet is a concept invented by us, therefore the truth of what a planet is can be whatever we want. The truth we are seeking is more what is true of everything (of nature). I would suggest the concept of balance has a large impact on finding this truth.

I think truth is the accuracy of a subjective representation (or abstraction) of something objective. And a measure of the accuracy is whether the representation allows us to make predictions. Megabrain's cup doesn't care if it truly is to the left of his keyboard. The meaning of "truth", "left", "cup", "keyboard", whether or not space is finite, infinite, flat, curved or bent has no effect on where the cup is from the cup's point of view because as far as I know it doesn't have one. But he can be fairly certain that if the lights go out and he is left in the dark that if he moves his hand around the left side of his keyboard he can find the cup. So there might not be absolute truth but there are certainly varying degrees of truth which can be meaningfully compared which is why it is a fallacy for people to claim that because nothing can be absolutely disproved all opinions are equally valid ( I'll refrain from singling out creationists here, oh, shit I just did, my bad :P )

Originally Posted by charles brough

Leo, I take it you are serious with this question so I will give what I hope will be some insight. First, some scientific background:

The illusory nature of scientific "truth" was discovered back in the 1920s and 1930s. Among the first to discover it was the philosopher of History, Benedetto Croce and the linguist, Ludwig Wittgenstein. In 1921, they explained that history and language cannot picture reality. In 1925, Alfred North Whitehead discovered it in philosophy and mathematics. In 1927, Werner Heisenberg discovered it in physics, and in 1929, Karl Mannheim in sociology. Finally, historians, Carl Becker, R. Collingwood and Charles A. Beard all found it out between 1931 and 1935. All this was facilitated by Albert Einstein’s discovery of the relative nature of everything in 1905.

What it seems to boil down to is that we are finite in an infinite world and can never know everything about anything. We can understand process but never completely gauge the whole cause and effect process of anything so well as to forever know it as "Truth." We will always be increasing the accuracy of what we believe. If this subject really interests you, I suggest you look at item #12 in the APPENDIX to my webpage.


charles, SimpleNet Web Hosting, Dedicated Servers, Reseller Web Hosting, San Diego, CA

Best answer so far...the rest is, sorry folks, worthless jokes.
But Charles... Truth is correspondence! Ask Aristotle

Originally Posted by marnixR

i'm rather surprised that no-one has brought up the following definition of truth, considering this is a science forum : according to the scientific method, anything is considered true until it has been falsified - the larger the number of unsuccessful efforts to falsify a theory or claim, the greater the likelihood that the theory or claim approaches "objective" truth

Im not so surprised...this forum seems to be occupied by... er... Forget it folks I dont feel like telling you the truth in this matter!
And,marnixR, Scientists prefere using a theory that they have been unable to prove wrong instead of using a theory successfully proven wrong! There are no inductive truths. Truth comes in when deduction is used. I came here for serious discussion... Its supposed to be a science forum but Im beginning to suspect it is a joke.

Originally Posted by wonkothesane

I think truth is the accuracy of a subjective representation (or abstraction) of something objective. And a measure of the accuracy is whether the representation allows us to make predictions. Megabrain's cup doesn't care if it truly is to the left of his keyboard. The meaning of "truth", "left", "cup", "keyboard", whether or not space is finite, infinite, flat, curved or bent has no effect on where the cup is from the cup's point of view because as far as I know it doesn't have one. But he can be fairly certain that if the lights go out and he is left in the dark that if he moves his hand around the left side of his keyboard he can find the cup. So there might not be absolute truth but there are certainly varying degrees of truth which can be meaningfully compared which is why it is a fallacy for people to claim that because nothing can be absolutely disproved all opinions are equally valid ( I'll refrain from singling out creationists here, oh, shit I just did, my bad :P )

I missed your post while skimming the thread through... Perhaps one out of twenty is serious in here...I planned to leave immediately but I will give it a try against my ... Well you can guess huh?

sigurdW, Would you then say, truth is that which does not have a contradiction. We deduce truth with facts and or deductive reasoning. I find truth often illusive in a faith based society.

Originally Posted by ewynn

sigurdW, Would you then say, truth is that which does not have a contradiction. We deduce truth with facts and or deductive reasoning. I find truth often illusive in a faith based society.

My immediate reaction is: Yes indeed! I am in total agreement.
The thing is ... I am a careful thinker but sometimes it happens that I make a mistake in my first evaluation.
But I strongly believe this is not the case in your case!

Hmmm...Faith based societies...Eastern philosophies... Religion...
They all occupy themselves with how the truth appears to us...
Taking on red glasses makes the appearance of reality red, but it doesnt paint reality red.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Id like to hear your views:

What IS truth ?

What (actually) happened.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Id like to hear your views:

What IS truth ?

Or, what (actually) happens.

Originally Posted by ;51773

To be a philosopher, and someone megabrain hates all the more:

Truth is something that is unreachable, yet immense in value. For if truth is found, one has found the answer to everything in that pure form of truth. Humans and other conscious beings have sought truth since the beginning of their times, yet a pure form of it is never within reach.

Indeed, for if truth is to be found, perfection needs to be reached. People delude themselves into thinking that "facts" are truth, or that faith is truth, or that their subjective feelings and views are truth. In reality, they only slip away from a simple "truth" that has been known for a long time: Nothing is true, it's only what you believe true. Ultimate truth, for subjective beings, cannot exist.

But this provides a paradox, for if one assumes that is truth, does it not imply that it is not given how humans are subjective creatures?

The above continues on for a looooooooonnnnnnnnggggg time. And it appears I've written it a bit worse than I intended. Eh, well, you'll have to suffer through it. :P

Since the statement "nothing is true" leads to contradiction it is false.

If truth is unreachable than this fact cannot be proven.
So why bother making the claim unless you claim its true?
And if you do then your claim leads to contradiction and is false.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Id like to hear your views:

What IS truth ?

Ive already stated my own view in the thread:http://www.thescienceforum.com/philosophy/29094-truth-about-truth.html

I will reprint in here in the hope that it will be read,understood and checked for eventual errors:

Aristotle stated: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is,
is false,
while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true".

The problem is that a paradox rests at the foundation Aristoteles laid:

Permit me the tell in the traditional sage manner: (using a fairy tale)

Aristoteles was sitting at the fire gnawing bones,

happy that he at last understood the truth about truth.

Epimenides sits down beside him and says: This is not so!

A: Oh? Arent we sitting here gnawing bones!?

E: I dont dispute that! You misinterpret me!

E: It is not as I say this very moment!

Aristoteles never found a good answer to Epimenides statement...

Since what Epimenides said is false if its true and true if its false.

Here is what I think is the solution to the problem:

Definition:

y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true",
and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y.

THESIS:No liar identity is Logically true.

Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb) )

1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption)

2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1)

3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2)

4. Sentence 3 contradicts the assumption. (QED)

The logical form of the foundation of the Paradox:

1. x is not true.
2. x = "x is not true".

Some values for x makes the liar Identity Empirically true:

1. Sentence 1 is not true. (Liar Sentence)
2. Sentence 1 = " Sentence 1 is not true." (Liar Identity)

To get to the paradox one must produce " 3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2.
But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence!
Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1,or any other liar sentence.

Now lets take a wider view for a general solution:

Definition: Let x be any English sentence then x is a self referent sentence if and only if there is a predicate Z such that x = Zx.

Most Modern Logics exclude, in one way or another, self referential sentences in order to escape inconsistency.
This has the awkward effect that paradoxes cant be studied, analysed and solved since ,as it seems,
self reference is a necessary condition for a paradox to be derived.

Suppose that x is a selfreferential sentence then:

1 x = Zx
2 Zx = ZZx
3 (x = Zx) implies that (Zx = ZZx) (conclusion)

We have now a logical truth about self reference:
If the right side of the implication is false
then the left side is false as well
and x is not a selfreferential sentence!

Ill use this poste made by mistake for somethin later...or moderators can take it away.