Irrefutable, therefore true?

If a statement is found to be irrefutable, is it therefore true?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If by "irrefutable" you mean "unfalsifiable" - i.e. cannot be disproven - then the answer is surely NO.

However, it will remain a possibility - along with the infinite other irrefutable ideas.

And it certainly isn't "false" either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

inference is not a perfect vessel for discerning truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All there is, is consistency within a model eh? That doesn't mean the model is reflective of anything more than itself.

 

now for the examples? aka whats really on green's mind?

 

Not at all.

I could say on this forum that I am sitting here drunk and naked while posting.
You could not refute that statement, and yet it may or may not be true.

The statement made by Sarkus is, however, irrefutably true.

 

Thanks for asking.

The examples can be found in philosophical and religious texts and in everyday situations whenever a discussion or a debate reaches the point where one party cannot refute what the other is saying, and the other claims that therefore his claim is true.
Or something similar happens in one's internal dialogue, where one comes to the conclusion that since one couldn't refute something, it must be that it is true.
(Remember Conversational Terrorism?)


I'm wondering whether there are perhaps more general principles to resolve this, hence I didn't specify anything further in the OP.

 

?....

 

Examples:


- See Marquis' post above.

- "We are subject to delusion".

- Conspiracy theories.

- The Christian claims: "What I am telling you is the truth. If you disagree or don't believe it, you are deluded, lying or evil."

 

Depends if its an objective statement.

 

Examples, please?

 

If a statement cannot be refuted, it must be true. I believe that any false statement can either be refuted, or be made irrelevant, given infinte amount effort (and wisdom).

But just because I cannot refute it does not mean it's true. I (for one) have limited resources and intelligence. And thereforewe never can prove anything without a doubt, therefore it cannot be said we can "find" something irrefutable.

And therefore anything I cannot refute becomes a positive possibility, to be used where appliciable.

 

In short, yes.

 

my nizzle in dis bizzle. aight den.

so like, why be short yo?

you know it's going to get drug out of you, so just spill your guts please. at least lend me a little flava, playa. I presume it's in defining truth? no? irrefutable then? I'd like to see what you could do with "therefore".

shine your light damnit.

 

can you refute it?
it must be true then

/cackle

 

Yes? How?

Edit: At what point can one declare victory and depart the field?

 

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1025325#1025325

The doctor words it alot better then myself!

 

lol... nice wes.

And so......


yo yo, peep this.. the straight dope:

"Irrefutable" is a matter of procedure: nothing but a contingent application of the word to an inductive generalization. All that "irrefutable" means is: it is exceedingly improbable that future investigation will contradict record.

Interestingly enough, as wes has hinted at, this is inextricably related to an operational definition of 'truth'. In essence, I would argue that the two key terms here are synonyms.

With respect to wes' point concerning the implicative "therefore", there is little to say beyond the fact that the word is properly used to describe a supposed 'causal' relationship amongst propositions. To my mind, "therefore" could easily be replaced by a bivalent conditional at any time.

With respect to greenberg's question: this is really just a matter of convention. How much evidence does one need to be prepared to conclude that a hypothesis has been satisfied? Strictly speaking, the answer to your question is "never'. However, pragmatic concerns override any exhaustive inductive analysis.


Where does this leave us (or at least... me..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)??

"Truth" is a generalized case of the particular "irrefutable".

"Truth" then, is not fixed; it is a process, and is determined socially and conventionally.

 

oh yeah?

 

Sorry but every time I hear that it cracks me straight up. I'll develop an actual response in the near future.