What is Truth?

[Tiassa]

More meta-commentary from you? Why not discuss the thread topic, for a change?

See #28↑ above, which answers the topic post questions. Why not be honest, for a change?

 

[Seattle]

Is this more meta-commentary, or are you referring obliquely to the thread topic?

Who, exactly, are you suggesting is autistic? And what goings-on are you referring to, specifically? In what way do you think autism would explain these goings-on?

(If, as I suspect, this is meta-commentary from you, please consider taking it to a different thread.)

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain. People with ASD often have problems with social communication and interaction, and restricted or repetitive behaviors or interests.

Tiassa of course.

 

[Sarkus]

Fair enough. I have moved the thread to Human Sciences. My aim here is to discuss how different people think about Truth. So it's a fair call to say that this is more about what human beings do than it is about broad philosophical questions.

Having said that, I think this thread could go down a number of different paths. We'll see how the conversation develops.

Sounds reasonable, but I think the new home is more representative of the intention of the thread.

I don't recall bashing anybody.

The pitcher doesn't recall throwing a ball as he steps up to the plate for the first time in the game, either. But he has ball in hand. And history. Forgive me for assuming that at some point he will unfurl what he thinks is his curveball, or fastball, or whatever.

I said that one guy's responses to these statements caught my attention and that I was surprised to see how differently he thinks about these things, compared to how I think about them.

If you use as a target that which you have previously shot at, it is not surprising to think that people may think you're going to shoot again.

Your reading insincerity into my attempt to start an interesting discussion is on you, not me.

I see no insincerity on your part. I think you are sincerely looking to bash those you consider think of "truth" differently to you. You may try and hide it, dress it up in clothes you think a virtue of respect and honesty, and it may be on an interesting subject matter. But the bashing will still be there, even if you don't recognise it yourself.

Believe what you like about that, but please don't make accusations you can't support.

I leave your responses in the rest of the thread, assuming you take part in any discussion, as the likely evidence. If you prove me wrong, great, I'll stand corrected. But, as said, if you stand at the mound with a ball in hand, and choose a target to aim at, don't complain that people think you're about to thow a ball at it.

One way to correlate responses would be to put the same questons to a wider group of people and examine the responses, would it not? That would extend the sample size to more than one.

Hey! That gives me an idea. I could, perhaps, start a thread on sciforums and ask people how they would respond to the various statements.

Thanks for the suggestion, Sarkus! Oh, wait...

That would all be very appropriate, except for the fact that to correlate X and Y you do need to find out their positions on X and Y. Just asking questions about X isn't going to help. Sure, now you've been given the suggestion I'm sure you'll sincerely claim that you had the intention of asking about Y in the discussion, but, well, whatever.

Nothing but a case of that, eh?

I'll be happy to be surprised by you, JamesR.

Well, I guess this is will be the point at which you exit this meaningless thread. Right? Thanks for your contribution and useful suggestion. See ya!

No, I'll keep tabs on it, thanks. See where it heads and be surprised when it turns into something of note. My biggest contribution, however, may well be having highlighted the obvious positioning you've taken such that you deliberately avoid acting on it. That way, who knows, the thread may be of interest after all. And you'll even get to say how wrong I was. Wouldn't that be a fine thing.

 

[Sarkus]

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain. People with ASD often have problems with social communication and interaction, and restricted or repetitive behaviors or interests.

Note that autism is a spectrum, ranging from mild and almost imperceptible, to the level of autism that you read most often about. I am almost certain that several members of this community are somewhere on this spectrum. But... so what?
Whether someone suffers from a condition or not, deal with what they say, and if you struggle to understand them, ask them to explain.

 

[arfa brane]

And once again, we see the propensity to waste time trying to discuss something, anything at all, on a "science site"

That might actually be the only true thing about online "discussions"; they're a way to waste time disagreeing with each other, about whatever the fuck. Nobody cares, right?

 

[Sarkus]

Where do you think the "trap" is in these questions? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that. I don't think this particular guy suspected any sort of "trap", but it seems you do. Probably Sarkus, too, but I don't expect we'll be hearing from him again in this thread; do you?

I don't think there is any "trap" in the questions themselves, just lack of clarity in the questions from a philosophical perspective, and, well, whatever. Whether someone else perceives a "trap" in the questions would surely depend upon the context in which that person was asked. What was the context the Trump supporter was asked? Do you know? If not, how can you dismiss that the Trump supporter may have suspected a trap?

I take a different approach to that kind of thing. If your favorite colour is blue, then I'd say it is true for everyone that your (weg's) favorite colour is blue.

Okay, imagine wegs said that "[X] is beautiful". I imagine you would then turn this around and say that the "truth" is that "wegs thinks [X] is beautiful". But that then becomes a different proposition.
To wegs, [X] is beautiful. That is the truth of it, to wegs. To others, [X] may be ugly. That would be truth of it to them. Subjective truth.
However, one can always make an objectively true proposition about a subjective truth ("it is objectively true that you subjectively think [Y]", etc). It doesn't actually make the proposition "[X]is beautiful" less true to wegs. It just ignores it. And if we ignore the subjective then everything left, by defintion, will be objective. I mean, if you want to assume a priori that there is no subjective to consider, then, sure, whatever.

This is not a matter of subjective reality. The reality is that blue is your favorite colour. The statement "Blue is weg's favorite colour" is true if the real-world wegs who shares the same physical universe with the rest of us considers blue to be her favorite colour. That is, the statement is true because it corresponds to reality.

Do you not see the intellectual dishonesty of rewording propositions, and claiming the supremacy of your reworded in addressing the other, and of simply ignoring any and all subjective propositions?

If we're talking about the same thing, I don't think it is possible for that thing to be true for one person and not true for a second person.

Okay, so you consider two different propositions and then conclude that "if we're talking about the same thing"? The propositions are different. We really don't seem to be talking about the same thing. One is a subjective view, the other is an objective view of the subjective view. They are not the same because of the perspective of the person making the proposition. i.e. subjectivity. Again, if you want to ignore the subjective perspective, and only consider such objective propositions, just say and, well, whatever.

I think that people tend to use turns of phrase like "It's true for me that ..." or "It's my truth that ..." when they really just mean "I believe that ...". But capital 't' Truth is not just about belief. It's about justification. Demonstrable correspondence with reality is justification.

No, truth is not about justification. Justification can be wrong. Gettier et al have provided ample examples in their analysis and papers on knowledge, of where justification can be flawed, yet the belief is true (and thus the person can be said to have knowledge).
You also say "demonstrable correspondence with reality is justification", and imply that without a justification something can not be true (your "It's about justification"). Yet there are infinite propositions that are true that are not demonstrable. I would therefore suggest you are confusing truth and knowledge (e.g. the idea that knowledge is a Justified True Belief etc). But, sure, whatever.

You also seem to be making a differentiation between "truth" and "Truth"???? What is the difference, as you see it, between mere truth and its capitalised variant?

But to evidence your apparent confusion of the matter: you say that "truth is not just about belief", which semantically means that it is about belief but also other things, yet you have provided the answer: "3. Truth depends on the opinions and beliefs of people. DISAGREE." Which is it? Is truth dependent in any way upon belief, or not? If it has nothing to do with belief, why did you say that "truth is not just about belief", and why do you think that justification is important to truth, when justification would seem associated with belief rather than truth?
I'm hoping you can clear up what seems a significant confusion?

But, heh, I guess I don't expect we'll be hearing from you again in this thread; do you?

 

[Yazata]

I would suggest that, as such, this would have been better served in something like the Human Sciences section, as you're effectively just looking for a something akin to a personality test with which to bash those you disagree with (e.g. "Trump supporter"), rather than a sincere effort at looking at the question you actually posed in the thread title.

Perhaps I was over-hasty in 'liking' the questions in the OP. Seeing as how they were posted in the 'Philosophy' section, I took them to be a good faith attempt to explore a very interesting and important question. If I suspected an ulterior motive at all, I suspected it might be something derived from discussion in the 'fringe' fora.

Maybe the Politics thread, being an inquiry into the thinking of a supporter of a particular brand? But then you'd be tasked, probably among other things, with trying to show how it actually applies to the whole rather than just the (possibly extreme) individual that caught your attention.

It's a bit ironic that I'm something of a "Trump supporter", but I think that I probably answered the 'truth' questions pretty much the same way that JamesR himself would have answered them.

Maybe it would be interesting to correlate the responses to political leaning etc. I.e. establish the actual link you have seemed to assume through a sample of, what is it, one?

My expectation is that individuals on both the right and the left adhere to a variety of different conceptions of truth. Though I'd expect that the majority on both sides probably adhere to some version of common-sense realism and to the correspondence theory or truth, with other views more or less as outliers.

That being said, I would speculate that the more subjectivist interpretations of 'truth' are probably more correlated with political left opinion. I'm thinking of trendy French literary postmodernism here, along with all the late-Marxist theories of ideology (Frankfurt school etc.) and the resulting feminist and 'critical' 'standpoint epistemologies' and critiques of science. These are very influential in universities at the moment and some of them are full-frontal attacks on the whole idea of objective truth. (Dismissed as white cis-male truth.)

 

[Seattle]

Note that autism is a spectrum, ranging from mild and almost imperceptible, to the level of autism that you read most often about. I am almost certain that several members of this community are somewhere on this spectrum. But... so what?
Whether someone suffers from a condition or not, deal with what they say, and if you struggle to understand them, ask them to explain.

I'm aware that autism is a spectrum. My point was, don't expect a duck to not be a duck. Don't expect an autistic person to not be hyper-focused, or to have a generalized sense of humor.

 

[James R]

Seattle and Sarkus,

Perhaps we need a spinoff thread on autism. That discussion strikes me as completely irrelevant to the topic of the current thread.

Note that autism is a spectrum, ranging from mild and almost imperceptible, to the level of autism that you read most often about. I am almost certain that several members of this community are somewhere on this spectrum. But... so what?

The full "spectrum" would have to include the average functioning human being at one end, wouldn't it? Everybody would have to be somewhere on that "spectrum".

That's unless you can specify some minimal set of conditions that a person must satisfy to be considered "on the spectrum". Can you do that?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain. People with ASD often have problems with social communication and interaction, and restricted or repetitive behaviors or interests.

Sarkus has referred to the "autism spectrum", but here Seattle refers to autism spectrum disorder.

Is there a point on this spectrum, which ranges from "mild to almost imperceptible" through to "the level of autism you read most often about", at which autism becomes classified as a "disorder" or "disability", then? Where is that line?

Which of you two guys is an expert on autism? Or are you both experts? Can either of you clarify?

Tiassa of course.

I see. Seattle is diagnosing Tiassa as having "autism spectrum disorder" - a developmental disability.

You're an expert, I take it, then, Seattle? You're able to make a professional diagnosis from stuff posted on an internet discussion forum? Where did you develop that skill?

Or were you just trying to insult Tiassa by claiming he has a "disability", a "disorder", "problems with social communication and interaction"?

What's your own diagnosis when it comes to "problems with social communication and interaction"? Is it self-assessed, or have you had your own place on the spectrum calibrated by qualified professional colleagues?

I am almost certain that several members of this community are somewhere on this spectrum. But... so what?

Indeed. So what?

Is a person superior to another person if the first person is not "on the spectrum"? It is because person 1 lacks a "disability", a "disorder"? What follows from this presumed superiority?

Is it acceptable to discriminate against people who are "on the spectrum", or who have "ASD"? Is insulting them okay? Is it okay to disparage them for their "problems with social communication and interaction"?

Whether someone suffers from a condition or not, deal with what they say, and if you struggle to understand them, ask them to explain.

That sounds fair. We should be empathetic to people who "suffer from a condition" that is no fault of their own. Shouldn't we?

I'm aware that autism is a spectrum. My point was, don't expect a duck to not be a duck. Don't expect an autistic person to not be hyper-focused, or to have a generalized sense of humor.

What is a "generalized sense of humor"? Have you got one of those? Is there a "generalized humor" spectrum too?
---

Here's what I take away from this off-topic digression. To me, it looks like Seattle has a prejudice against people he considers for whatever reason to have "autism spectrum disorder". It seems like Seattle thinks that it is acceptable to disparage such people, for a personal characteristic that they have no say in. It also seems like Seattle thinks that it's okay to slap the "autism" label on people as an insult, based on Seattle's own unqualified amateur "diagnoses".

I don't think this helps paint Seattle as a very nice person.

That's just my impression so far, for what it's worth.

 

[Seattle]

Seattle and Sarkus,

Perhaps we need a spinoff thread on autism. That discussion strikes me as completely irrelevant to the topic of the current thread.

The full "spectrum" would have to include the average functioning human being at one end, wouldn't it? Everybody would have to be somewhere on that "spectrum".

That's unless you can specify some minimal set of conditions that a person must satisfy to be considered "on the spectrum". Can you do that?

Sarkus has referred to the "autism spectrum", but here Seattle refers to autism spectrum disorder.

Is there a point on this spectrum, which ranges from "mild to almost imperceptible" through to "the level of autism you read most often about", at which autism becomes classified as a "disorder" or "disability", then? Where is that line?

Which of you two guys is an expert on autism? Or are you both experts? Can either of you clarify?

I see. Seattle is diagnosing Tiassa as having "autism spectrum disorder" - a developmental disability.

You're an expert, I take it, then, Seattle? You're able to make a professional diagnosis from stuff posted on an internet discussion forum? Where did you develop that skill?

Or were you just trying to insult Tiassa by claiming he has a "disability", a "disorder", "problems with social communication and interaction"?

What's your own diagnosis when it comes to "problems with social communication and interaction"? Is it self-assessed, or have you had your own place on the spectrum calibrated by qualified professional colleagues?

Indeed. So what?

Is a person superior to another person if the first person is not "on the spectrum"? It is because person 1 lacks a "disability", a "disorder"? What follows from this presumed superiority?

Is it acceptable to discriminate against people who are "on the spectrum", or who have "ASD"? Is insulting them okay? Is it okay to disparage them for their "problems with social communication and interaction"?

That sounds fair. We should be empathetic to people who "suffer from a condition" that is no fault of their own. Shouldn't we?

What is a "generalized sense of humor"? Have you got one of those? Is there a "generalized humor" spectrum too?
---

Here's what I take away from this off-topic digression. To me, it looks like Seattle has a prejudice against people he considers for whatever reason to have "autism spectrum disorder". It seems like Seattle thinks that it is acceptable to disparage such people, for a personal characteristic that they have no say in. It also seems like Seattle thinks that it's okay to slap the "autism" label on people as an insult, based on Seattle's own unqualified amateur "diagnoses".

I don't think this helps paint Seattle as a very nice person.

That's just my impression so far, for what it's worth.

Your impression isn't worth very much, if you were wondering about that.

Is this is "guided discussion forum" where the moderator "guides" every discussion?

You are reading a lot into my comments while accusing me of doing the same. That's not very consistent, James.

I'm not referring to autism in a derogatory way. I know that is generally the way that you like to take things but that's your issue, not mine.

You asked who I was referring to, I told you and then you took exception to me naming names. Maybe you just like to lecture? In any event I provided an answer to a question you seem to have wondered about for years regarding Tiassa.

You throw around accusations of being "superior" when no one said that and in doing so you seem to hold yourself up as superior over and over again.

It's hard to tell when you have your "moderator hat" on but your posting style indicates that you never take that hat off. Every thread isn't specifically directed at you to the point where you need to answer if you aren't interested and every thread certainly doesn't need moderation, I assume you do realize that?

If you want to get back to the topic of "truth" that topic seems to be a train wreck when everyone agrees and how could they not with questions such as (4) Do people create words and their meanings? Who else would it be, chipmunks?

How could there be any disagreement there? Was that a disingenuous question? If I can channel my inner James R. "it seems to me that James R. is being disingenuous in this thread and maybe isn't a very nice person"?

Does James R. want to set someone up with this thread? It didn't turn out that way and it's just preaching to the choir.

What's new? "What is the meaning of life?"

 

[Sarkus]

Perhaps we need a spinoff thread on autism. That discussion strikes me as completely irrelevant to the topic of the current thread.

Says the person who then proceeds to make a long and ultimately pointless post that is similarly "completely irrelevant to the topic of the current thread".

The full "spectrum" would have to include the average functioning human being at one end, wouldn't it? Everybody would have to be somewhere on that "spectrum".

Sure, just like every EM wave sits somewhere in the spectrum of visible light, I guess.

That's unless you can specify some minimal set of conditions that a person must satisfy to be considered "on the spectrum". Can you do that?

Me? No. Can doctors? That is likely. I'm assuming that's how they diagnose that someone suffers from the disability.

Is there a point on this spectrum, which ranges from "mild to almost imperceptible" through to "the level of autism you read most often about", at which autism becomes classified as a "disorder" or "disability", then? Where is that line?

Probably at the point it interferes with leading a normal life and they seek a professional opinion. A work colleague of mine was in his mid-forties before he was officially diagnosed. We just saw him as quirky. The diagnosis made no change to his life, though, other than giving him an understanding of his quirkiness.

Which of you two guys is an expert on autism? Or are you both experts? Can either of you clarify?

To what end? If you're really that interested in a matter that is "completely irrelevant to the topic of the current thread", you'd be better off just searching for details on the internet. It's a wonderful place, full of interesting stuff. You should try it.

That's just my impression so far, for what it's worth.

So really all you have done when confronted with a matter that you, as a moderator, see as "completely irrelevant to the topic of the current thread", is make a lengthy reply on the "completely irrelevant" matter with the sole purpose of trying to bash someone.
To the first, sure, I guess that's one way for a moderator to move the discussion back on to the relevant topic ; to the second, well, whatever.

 

[C C]

Perhaps I was over-hasty in 'liking' the questions in the OP. Seeing as how they were posted in the 'Philosophy' section, I took them to be a good faith attempt to explore a very interesting and important question. [...]

Yah, it has now become akin to a survey conducted by one of the social sciences, and consequently the point is no longer the topic itself treated credibly, but instead acquiring data about the mindsets of the test group.

An analogy would be a research team asking religious people what they think about _X_ supernatural entity or affair. The study itself has zero concern about the latter's ontological status and character; only in collecting psychological portraits of those who believe in _X_. (From which more general conclusions about individual and group patterns might be abstracted.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Where do you think the "trap" is in these questions?

Well the trap would be in that he could be subsequently hoisted on his own petard - say, the interviewer had a good idea how he might answer, and how that could be used to show him as a hypocrite - for example on some hot-button political stance he'd taken somewhen.

Why would you assume that? What agenda? Whose agenda? Why?

This is being asked in the context of a political identity (Trump Supporter). That strongly suggests it would be of no interest to the public if it did not further someone's political agenda.

"We asked this guy what he thinks of inner city poverty."
versus
"We asked this Afro-American guy what he thinks of inner city poverty."
Context matters.

 

[James R]

Your impression isn't worth very much, if you were wondering about that.

It doesn't mean much to you, you mean. I get that, loud and clear. Whose opinions do you value, other than your own?

Is this is "guided discussion forum" where the moderator "guides" every discussion?

What do you think?

I'm not referring to autism in a derogatory way.

You get to decide how your words are perceived by other people, do you?

You asked who I was referring to, I told you and then you took exception to me naming names.

No, that wasn't what I took exception to. You might have missed the point.

Maybe you just like to lecture?

Yes, I do! Is there something wrong with that, too?

In any event I provided an answer to a question you seem to have wondered about for years regarding Tiassa.

?

You throw around accusations of being "superior" when no one said that and in doing so you seem to hold yourself up as superior over and over again.

Accusations?

It's hard to tell when you have your "moderator hat" on but your posting style indicates that you never take that hat off. Every thread isn't specifically directed at you to the point where you need to answer if you aren't interested and every thread certainly doesn't need moderation, I assume you do realize that?

Were you moderated? Did I give you an official warning? Were you not free to speak your mind? Are you not free to do so now? Are you feeling restricted by my presence? Why?

If you want to get back to the topic of "truth" that topic seems to be a train wreck when everyone agrees and how could they not with questions such as (4) Do people create words and their meanings? Who else would it be, chipmunks?

I think you'll find that some people believe that words must have particular meanings, or that dictionaries mandate what words mean. There could be a whole range of views you're unaware of about words and meanings. My own personal experience here on sciforums suggests that some people consider dictionaries to be prescriptive rather than descriptive, for instance.

Does James R. want to set someone up with this thread?

Suppoose that you're right and my motive in starting this thread was to "bash Trump supporters", let's say. Then what? Why does it matter to you?

You're not obliged to read or participate in this thread, you know. Nor are you obliged to agree with anything I write. Yet you seem upset for some reason.

 

[Seattle]

It doesn't mean much to you, you mean. I get that, loud and clear. Whose opinions do you value, other than your own?

What do you think?

You get to decide how your words are perceived by other people, do you?

No, that wasn't what I took exception to. You might have missed the point.

Yes, I do! Is there something wrong with that, too?

?

Accusations?

Were you moderated? Did I give you an official warning? Were you not free to speak your mind? Are you not free to do so now? Are you feeling restricted by my presence? Why?

I think you'll find that some people believe that words must have particular meanings, or that dictionaries mandate what words mean. There could be a whole range of views you're unaware of about words and meanings. My own personal experience here on sciforums suggests that some people consider dictionaries to be prescriptive rather than descriptive, for instance.

Suppoose that you're right and my motive in starting this thread was to "bash Trump supporters", let's say. Then what? Why does it matter to you?

You're not obliged to read or participate in this thread, you know. Nor are you obliged to agree with anything I write. Yet you seem upset for some reason.

I'm not upset.

I care about things that aren't strictly related to me. Don't you?

I value reasonable opinions and not just my own. Don't you? I find Wegs to be reasonable and personable both when I agree with her and when I don't (for example).

Regarding "accusations" as we've learned from you, it's not an accusation if it's true.

No one is obligated to participate in any thread. We're all here voluntarily. I've noticed that you verbally like to show people the door but that's a two-way door that applies to you as well.

You keep introducing comments that were never made. I didn't imply that you were moderating or banning me nor am I feeling restricted by your presence. Are you feeling intimidated by my presence? Why?

You like to lecture. I like to lecture. Is there any problem with that? Why?

You seem rather sensitive on this subject. As you point out, that's how I interpret your words. Am I incorrect? Care to explain?

 

[James R]

I'm not upset.

Good to hear! I wouldn't want to see you grumpy and irritable!

I care about things that aren't strictly related to me. Don't you?

To varying degrees, yes I do.

I value reasonable opinions and not just my own. Don't you?

I'm interested to listen to reasonable opinions. Value can vary. An opinion can be both reasonable and wrong (and/or incorrect), for instance.

I find Wegs to be reasonable and personable both when I agree with her and when I don't (for example).

So do I.

Regarding "accusations" as we've learned from you, it's not an accusation if it's true.

It seems you misunderstood me, again, if that's what you took away from what I wrote. I'm happy to answer questions if you have them.

No one is obligated to participate in any thread. We're all here voluntarily. I've noticed that you verbally like to show people the door but that's a two-way door that applies to you as well.

It applies to me as well. I'm not obligated to be here. I can leave any time I want. I'm not obliged to read every thread, or every word of every post. Same as you.

It just strikes me that some people here, from time to time, act as if they are under an authoritarian regime and they have no choice. Walking away is always a choice. Other choices are also available, of course.

You keep introducing comments that were never made.

If you're accusing me of attributing comments to you that you never made, you ought to be able to present at least one example of where I did that. Can you?

I will, naturally, interpret what you write, just as you will interpret what I write. Sometimes, my interpretation might be incorrect. Sometimes that will be my fault; sometimes it might be your fault. This is how communication between human beings goes, using our imprecise languages and taking into account our human foibles, biases and idiosyncrasies. But none of this upsets you anyway, so I'm wondering why we're still talking about it. Perhaps you will explain.

I didn't imply that you were moderating or banning me nor am I feeling restricted by your presence.

All good, then!

Are you feeling intimidated by my presence?

Not at all. I'm quite enjoying your presence.

You like to lecture. I like to lecture. Is there any problem with that? Why?

You were the one who brought it up as if it was a problem, not me. If we're both in agreement that lecturing is an acceptable human behaviour, then we don't have a problem, do we?

You seem rather sensitive on this subject.

How so?

As you point out, that's how I interpret your words. Am I incorrect? Care to explain?

I think I've just done that. I'm happy to answer further questions, if you have some.

 

[James R]

I see no insincerity on your part. I think you are sincerely looking to bash those you consider think of "truth" differently to you. You may try and hide it, dress it up in clothes you think a virtue of respect and honesty, and it may be on an interesting subject matter. But the bashing will still be there, even if you don't recognise it yourself.

Subconcious bashing, eh?

What I'm actually interested in is, firstly, the extent to which people think differently than me about Truth, and why they think that way. Secondly, I am interested in whether there are objectively better and worse ways to think about Truth. To define "better" and "worse" requires that there be some end goal to aim at, of course. So, a subsidiary question might be: what do we hope to gain from "the truth"?

I don't think there is any "trap" in the questions themselves, just lack of clarity in the questions from a philosophical perspective, and, well, whatever.

Interpreting the statements is part of the exercise.

Whether someone else perceives a "trap" in the questions would surely depend upon the context in which that person was asked. What was the context the Trump supporter was asked?

He was asked in the context of somebody wanting to find out what his opinions were on truth, belief and other matters of epistemology. That intent was communicated to him up front. He was a willing participant in the discussion.

If not, how can you dismiss that the Trump supporter may have suspected a trap?

I can't dismiss it, but it wouldn't make much sense for him to suspect that, given the context. He didn't act cagey and guarded.

Okay, imagine wegs said that "[X] is beautiful". I imagine you would then turn this around and say that the "truth" is that "wegs thinks [X] is beautiful".

That would be a truth, would it not? The question of whether [X] was objectively beautiful, in some sense, would be a separate question, assuming there is even such a thing as objectively beautiful.

To wegs, [X] is beautiful. That is the truth of it, to wegs. To others, [X] may be ugly. That would be truth of it to them. Subjective truth.

You're telling me that you believe in "subjective truth", then.

Fine. Interesting opinion. You're a data point here, along with everybody else.

And if we ignore the subjective then everything left, by defintion, will be objective. I mean, if you want to assume

a priori that there is no subjective to consider, then, sure, whatever.

I didn't say anything about that. The topic is "What is Truth?" not "Does subjectivity exist?"

I agree with you that people have subjective experiences and opinions. Does that placate you?

Do you not see the intellectual dishonesty of rewording propositions, and claiming the supremacy of your reworded in addressing the other, and of simply ignoring any and all subjective propositions?

Not sure that I've done any of that. What are you referring to?

Okay, so you consider two different propositions and then conclude that "if we're talking about the same thing"?

My statement about talking about the same thing was a general one, not referenced to any particular example. Sorry for the confusion.

Again, if you want to ignore the subjective perspective, and only consider such objective propositions, just say and, well, whatever.

I want to know what Truth is.

I think you've made your point that you believe that Truth can be subjective. I'm getting that loud and clear.

Will it upset you if it turns out that I think differently to you about this?

No, truth is not about justification. Justification can be wrong. Gettier et al have provided ample examples in their analysis and papers on knowledge, of where justification can be flawed, yet the belief is true (and thus the person can be said to have knowledge).

Interesting. Can you provide one example?

You also say "demonstrable correspondence with reality is justification", and imply that without a justification something can not be true (your "It's about justification"). Yet there are infinite propositions that are true that are not demonstrable. I would therefore suggest you are confusing truth and knowledge (e.g. the idea that knowledge is a Justified True Belief etc). But, sure, whatever.

I'm not confusing them. I think that justification is what we need to know the Truth.

Do you agree?

You also seem to be making a differentiation between "truth" and "Truth"???? What is the difference, as you see it, between mere truth and its capitalised variant?

Maybe the difference is the difference between your subjective "truth" and my objective "Truth".

Maybe you don't think there is a difference. Maybe that's a difference between your opinion and mine.

Does that bother you? It sounds like you're bothered.

But to evidence your apparent confusion of the matter: you say that "truth is not just about belief", which semantically means that it is about belief but also other things, yet you have provided the answer: "3. Truth depends on the opinions and beliefs of people. DISAGREE." Which is it? Is truth dependent in any way upon belief, or not?

Good point. Excise the word "just" from my previous statement. I'm happy to go with that. Are you?

I'm hoping you can clear up what seems a significant confusion?

I hope what I have posted here helps to clarify.

I thank you for helping me to clarify certain points in my own thinking.

But, heh, I guess I don't expect we'll be hearing from you again in this thread; do you?

You still sound a bit upset. Why? Regretting the autism thing, maybe?

 

[James R]

Yazata:

Perhaps I was over-hasty in 'liking' the questions in the OP. Seeing as how they were posted in the 'Philosophy' section, I took them to be a good faith attempt to explore a very interesting and important question. If I suspected an ulterior motive at all, I suspected it might be something derived from discussion in the 'fringe' fora.

I think you've hit on a problem that has been developing at sciforums, of late. It seems to me that a lot of people are on hair triggers, looking for reasons to lash out at other forum members. Instead of taking things at face value, they are hyper-vigilant and suspect ulterior motives and bad blood in every post.

Maybe this sort of thing is a factor in preventing us from attracting new members. Too many people here present a hard-nose, unwelcoming sort of facade.

Rather than assuming that there must always be an ulterior motive, why not wait and see whether an ulterior motive becomes apparent? Wouldn't that be more charitable?

It's a bit ironic that I'm something of a "Trump supporter", but I think that I probably answered the 'truth' questions pretty much the same way that JamesR himself would have answered them.

A few people here have suckered onto the fact that the guy I referred to happens to be a Trump supporter. I don't care much about that. What interested me, as I said, was how differently that guy thought about these questions, compared to the way I think about them.

I have not claimed that all Trump supporters think the same way.

I am disappointed to hear that a smart guy like you supports Trump, but that's just a personal thought, not something that is relevant to this thread.

My expectation is that individuals on both the right and the left adhere to a variety of different conceptions of truth. Though I'd expect that the majority on both sides probably adhere to some version of common-sense realism and to the correspondence theory or truth, with other views more or less as outliers.

That being said, I would speculate that the more subjectivist interpretations of 'truth' are probably more correlated with political left opinion. I'm thinking of trendy French literary postmodernism here, along with all the late-Marxist theories of ideology (Frankfurt school etc.) and the resulting feminist and 'critical' 'standpoint epistemologies' and critiques of science. These are very influential in universities at the moment and some of them are full-frontal attacks on the whole idea of objective truth. (Dismissed as white cis-male truth.)

I agree with you. There are people on all sides of the political spectrum who think differently about Truth. I am not very sympathetic to the postmodern theory that claims that all Truth is constructed. It sounds like you might not be, either. On the other hand, Sarkus appears to hold that opinion to some degree, just for comparison.

I think it's very interesting to find that even people with whom we agree on many things can turn out to think very differently. People can agree on things for different reasons. When we actually dig down and work out why they agree, the results can be surprising.

 

[Sarkus]

Subconcious bashing, eh?

If someone can't help themselves, and doesn't think they're doing it, either they're lying or they're not aware.

What I'm actually interested in is...

The things aren't mutually exclusive.

firstly, the extent to which people think differently than me about Truth, and why they think that way.

Great. Except you haven't really engaged with anyone as to the why part.

Secondly, I am interested in whether there are objectively better and worse ways to think about Truth. To define "better" and "worse" requires that there be some end goal to aim at, of course.

At least a subjective end goal, unless you're advocating only an objective one? With different subjective end goals, one person's better might be another person's worse. Are you open to dealing with that eventuality?

So, a subsidiary question might be: what do we hope to gain from "the truth"?

Feel free to engage with people and ask. And perhaps answer your own question first?

Interpreting the statements is part of the exercise.

I can interpret it in numerous ways. I'm not beholden to any particular viewpoint on the matter. So to avoid a lengthy "if this then... but if this then..., and if this..." etc. If you can't, or don't want, to provide that clarity, just say so.

He was asked in the context of somebody wanting to find out what his opinions were on truth, belief and other matters of epistemology. That intent was communicated to him up front. He was a willing participant in the discussion.

Sure, someone wouldn't offer those answers without being asked. There would, however, be a wider context that you either don't know or are not sharing, such as being an interview specifically as a Trump supporter, and thus he might have opted to answer the questions in support of Trump's position on such matters.
But, look, if you don't know, that's fine, but just say so.

I can't dismiss it, but it wouldn't make much sense for him to suspect that, given the context. He didn't act cagey and guarded.

Your view of what the context was looks surprisingly narrow and devoid of all the important information, for whatever reason.
And where can we see this interview to judge such matters as how he was acting for ourself. Or are you, as an advocate of only objective truths, claiming it objectively true that he wasn't cagey or guarded?

That would be a truth, would it not?

The question is not whether it is "a truth" but whether they are the same truth, and thus, in your view, all subjective truths are really objective truths in disguise, so to speak. Simply asserting it as "a truth" as if that makes it a fait accompli is... worrying.

The question of whether [X] was objectively beautiful, in some sense, would be a separate question, assuming there is even such a thing as objectively beautiful.

Indeed, which is why I didn't go down that path in the first place, nor assumed you did.

You're telling me that you believe in "subjective truth", then.

I am open to there being both, and can argue for both. I, personally, hold no firm view on the matter. Here, for the sake of argument, I am acting as advocate for there being "subjective truth".

Fine. Interesting opinion. You're a data point here, along with everybody else.

And still you haven't asked "why"? Of anyone? Yikes.

I didn't say anything about that. The topic is "What is Truth?" not "Does subjectivity exist?"

I have not claimed you have. I have made that point that wherever one dismisses the subjective, one is only left with the objective. This is equally true of everything as it is of just truths. Apply it to the matter at hand.
It's not rocket science, and I really shouldn't be having to explain it to you.

I agree with you that people have subjective experiences and opinions. Does that placate you?

I don't need placating, thanks, JamesR.

Not sure that I've done any of that. What are you referring to?

Your equating of someone (W) saying "X is beautiful" and "It is true that W thinks X is beautiful". They are different propositions. One is "X is beautiful" that W holds to be true but others perhaps would not. The other is "it is true to W that X is beautiful".

My statement about talking about the same thing was a general one, not referenced to any particular example. Sorry for the confusion.

Then your comment is demonstrably false. Let's talk about X that W says is beautiful. Y says that it is not beautiful. Are they not talking about the same thing (X)?
You can only make them about the same thing if you turn them from subjective views into objective ones, and in doing so you are no longer talking about the same propositions as the originals. So either way I'm struggling with your statement, pre- and post- your attempted clarification. Want to try again?

I want to know what Truth is.

You don't find it by telling people what it is.
You already know what Truth means to you, and how it operates in your worldview, so to speak. Given that you seem to think truth is only objective, you are also limiting yourself to an objective answer to "what is truth?"

I think you've made your point that you believe that Truth can be subjective. I'm getting that loud and clear.

To be clear, I am advocating here for there being subjective truth. I am also trying to explain to you, through my answers, the why of it. You know, that little thing you claim to be interested in yet haven't once asked any actual questions about of anyone.

Will it upset you if it turns out that I think differently to you about this?

Should it? And why does it matter? Will your view change on such a matter if it upsets someone? Whatever.

Interesting. Can you provide one example?

Sure. Imagine you believe a car is not working correctly because you hear a loud pop, and assume it is from the engine. However, it transpires that the car ran over a container that popped.
But the car is actually not working correctly. That is the truth.
Using the old notion of Knowledge being a Justified True Belief (JBT) you had a belief, you had justification, and it was true. Therefore you could claim to have known the car was faulty.
However, it is clear that the justification bore no logical means of attesting to the truth or otherwise of the belief. So did you really know the car was faulty?

I.e. the justification for the truth is wrong. But the proposition (the car is not working correctly) is still true.
Justification and truth would thus seem to be independent of each other.

I also suggest you read about "Gettier problem" in Wiki as an introduction to the matter, though, as there are examples, counter-examples, criticisms, more developed and nuanced examples from further work by other people etc. But Gettier is the starting point.

I'm not confusing them. I think that justification is what we need to know the Truth.

That's not what you said, though. You've moved from justification being needed for "truth" to "knowledge of the truth". They are different things. Justification is not needed for truth. Do you agree?

Do you agree?

I really suggest you read the work of Gettier et al on the matter of what is needed for knowledge, and the nature of the justification that one considers should be in place for knowledge. It's quite fascinating.

Maybe the difference is the difference between your subjective "truth" and my objective "Truth".

Maybe you don't think there is a difference. Maybe that's a difference between your opinion and mine.

I asked you how you are differentiating them. If you don't categorically know, why differentiate them in the first place? Are we to guess? "Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... who knows!"

Does that bother you? It sounds like you're bothered.

So you don't have the decency to provide details/clarification of the distinction you yourself made, and now you try to evade the matter and turn it to whether I'm bothered or not??

Good point. Excise the word "just" from my previous statement. I'm happy to go with that. Are you?

Whether I'm happy or not is surely irrelevant to your opinions, JamesR.
So now you're saying that truth is not about belief. Okay, at least you're now being consistent. So X believing that W is beautiful no way depends on their belief?

I hope what I have posted here helps to clarify.

It's a start.

I thank you for helping me to clarify certain points in my own thinking.

That's what discussion is for.

You still sound a bit upset. Why? Regretting the autism thing, maybe?

??? Seriously ???
I get upset by other's stupidity, their dishonesty, their pathetic approach to discussion. Am I upset? You tell me, JamesR.
And what do you honestly think there is to regret about an attempt by you to bash someone that laughably failed? What is there to regret about three small throwaway posts between myself and Seattle, off-topic for this thread, sure, and forgotten after that initial exachange, that you then choose to respond to in a lengthy post about how irrelevant it was, obviously attracing additional lengthy responses addressing all your efforts at bashing, and that you haven't even had the decency to respond to the latest.
Ironically, the only one who should be regretting their posts on that matter is you. But, heh, whatever.

 

[Sarkus]

A few people here have suckered onto the fact that the guy I referred to happens to be a Trump supporter. I don't care much about that. What interested me, as I said, was how differently that guy thought about these questions, compared to the way I think about them.

You don't help yourself with such matters, JamesR. You specifically mentioned that he was a Trump supporter, and even referenced how his responses were reminiscent of "alternative facts" etc. You brought the significance of his affiliation to the table, and now you're trying to row back.

That's not a problem, you're entitled to claim how it's an unintended distraction to what you really intended with this thread, but perhaps, if you want others to take that seriously, don't just wrap it up in a quiet corner of a response to someone else but, this being a thread that you started after all, make a post that clearly states that it is a distraction to the purpose of this thread, and that all references to his political affiliation should thus be considered irrelevant herewithin.

You know, help yourself?
But hey, perhaps you'll then post vast swathes of material on how irrelevant it is, and get engaged in a discussion on that. Wouldn't that be ironic!

I have not claimed that all Trump supporters think the same way.

No, but the insinuation was clearly there, especially through the reference to "alternative fact". You undeinably aligned those responses to notions of Trump. You may not have intended, but then what we write may can often suggest things we didn't intend, if we're not careful enough.

I think it's very interesting to find that even people with whom we agree on many things can turn out to think very differently. People can agree on things for different reasons. When we actually dig down and work out why they agree, the results can be surprising.

And yet you still haven't really asked anyone why?