What is Truth?

[Skepdick]

I think he's saying there is no such beast.

He's right, too. Unless you believe hypotheses can be synthesized ex nihilo, with no evidence whatsoever, there is nothing to synthesize a hypotheses with or about.

IF you are looking at a hypothesis, before your very eyes, It is empirical, real right there for you to see and examine, you cannot assert that "there is no such beast"

KNOWING that a hypothesis cannot be synthesized ex nihilio, how could you ever (and in what circumstances) arrive at the conclusion that the hypothesis (that exists, before your very eyes) was synthesised ex nihilio?!?!

It is precisely because you believe that a hypothesis CAN NOT be synthesized ex-nihilio is why you cannot dismiss ANY hypothesis EVER.

To dismiss a hypothesis, is the same as making the epistemic claim "I know this impostor-hypothesis was synthesized ex-nihilio'. How do you know?

[RCSaunders]

I think he's saying there is no such beast.

He's right, too. Unless you believe hypotheses can be synthesized ex nihilo, with no evidence whatsoever, there is nothing to synthesize a hypotheses with or about.

IF you are looking at a hypothesis, before your very eyes, It is empirical, real right there for you to see and examine, you cannot assert that "there is no such beast"

KNOWING that a hypothesis cannot be synthesized ex nihilio, how could you ever (and in what circumstances) arrive at the conclusion that the hypothesis (that exists, before your very eyes) was synthesised ex nihilio?!?!

It is precisely because you believe that a hypothesis CAN NOT be synthesized ex-nihilio is why you cannot dismiss ANY hypothesis EVER.

To dismiss a hypothesis, is the same as making the epistemic claim "I know this impostor-hypothesis was synthesized ex-nihilio'. How do you know?

Perhaps you don't mean the same thing by hypothesis, but if you mean, "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation," then no hypothesis is possible without some observed phenomenon or existent that requires an explanation. The conjectured or guessed explanation is the hypothesis.

At one time scientist attempted to explain the phenomenon of fire by the hypothetical substance, phlogiston. That hypothesis was only possible because there was an actual observable phenomenon to explain: fire. What you are suggesting is that someone could hypothesize a substance (nekranon) to explain a phenomenon (trises) that had never been obeserved.

Someone can certainly make up a "nekranon hypothesis for trises," but to accept it as having any meaning would be a kind of insanity. What use or purpose could a hypothesis that means nothing possibly have?

There must be some observable entity or event to be explained before an explanation for that entity or event can be hypothesized.

[NOTE: Also, any hypothesis for which there is no possible way to test to discover it is false, if it is false, is an invalid hypothesis. A hypothesis that cannot possibly result in some conclusion is meaningless fiction.]

[Skepdick]

Perhaps you don't mean the same thing by hypothesis

It doesn't matter what I mean, because I am only mirroring your language - whatever "hypothesis" means to you, that what I intend you to hear when I use the word.

IF the process by which a hypothesis is produces is: Evidence -> Synthesis -> Hypothesis, then every time you encounter a Hypothesis you must (necessarily and surely) conclude that the thing you are looking at (a Hypothesis) was synthesised from evidence.

Surely?

, but if you mean, "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation," then no hypothesis is possible without some observed phenomenon or existent that requires an explanation. The conjectured or guessed explanation is the hypothesis.

At one time scientist attempted to explain the phenomenon of fire by the hypothetical substance, phlogiston. That hypothesis was only possible because there was an actual observable phenomenon to explain: fire. What you are suggesting is that someone could hypothesize a substance (nekranon) to explain a phenomenon (trises) that had never been obeserved.

Someone can certainly make up a "nekranon hypothesis for trises," but to accept it as having any meaning would be a kind of insanity. What use or purpose could a hypothesis that means nothing possibly have?

There must be some observable entity or event to be explained before an explanation for that entity or event can be hypothesized.

That is very many words to describe: Evidence (observation)-> Synthesis -> Hypothesis

I observe reality (evidence) -> Think/Think/Think (Synthesize)-> God did it (Hypothesis)
I observe reality (evidence) -> Think/Think/Think (Synthesize)-> Quantum Fluctuations did it (Hypothesis)

It's obviously testable! You can make the same observations that I did.

[RCSaunders]

Perhaps you don't mean the same thing by hypothesis

It doesn't matter what I mean, because I am only mirroring your language - whatever "hypothesis" means to you, that what I intend you to hear when I use the word.

IF the process by which a hypothesis is produces is: Evidence -> Synthesis -> Hypothesis, then every time you encounter a Hypothesis you must (necessarily and surely) conclude that the thing you are looking at (a Hypothesis) was synthesised from evidence.

Surely?

, but if you mean, "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation," then no hypothesis is possible without some observed phenomenon or existent that requires an explanation. The conjectured or guessed explanation is the hypothesis.

At one time scientist attempted to explain the phenomenon of fire by the hypothetical substance, phlogiston. That hypothesis was only possible because there was an actual observable phenomenon to explain: fire. What you are suggesting is that someone could hypothesize a substance (nekranon) to explain a phenomenon (trises) that had never been obeserved.

Someone can certainly make up a "nekranon hypothesis for trises," but to accept it as having any meaning would be a kind of insanity. What use or purpose could a hypothesis that means nothing possibly have?

There must be some observable entity or event to be explained before an explanation for that entity or event can be hypothesized.

That is very many words to describe: Evidence (observation)-> Synthesis -> Hypothesis

I observe reality (evidence) -> Think/Think/Think (Synthesize)-> God did it (Hypothesis)
I observe reality (evidence) -> Think/Think/Think (Synthesize)-> Quantum Fluctuations did it (Hypothesis)

It's obviously testable! You can make the same observations that I did.

That seems to say there must be evidence before there can be a hypothesis.

But earlier you wrote:

IF the synthesis of hypotheses requires evidence, and if the absence of evidence prevents the synthesis of a hypothesis, how can there ever be such a thing as a hypothesis without evidence? What would you even call such a beast if you ever encountered one?

That seems to question the requirement for evidence for there to be a hypothesis.

So, if you are saying there does have to be evidence for there to be a hypothesis, when uwot wrote:

Yup, if someone presents me with an hypothesis for which there is zero evidence I do dismiss it, for the simple reason that in the absence of evidence there is nothing to have an hypothesis about.

Why did you write:

Well, that's a contradiction!

Which is it? Does a hypothesis have to have evidence or not, in your opinion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And in which framework do you determine which framework/system is "most true" relative to all other frameworks/systems?
What is most true [confidence level] would be based on the same results from repeated tests.
If we burn Hydrogen with Oxygen, we always get H20 i.e. water.
Anyone can test this scientific truths and they will get the same result every time.
What is most true will depend on the reliability, consistency of the result and the easiness the test can be carried out.

This is a statement made in a statistical/empirical framework. How and why did you choose this framework?

Why do you even care about reliability and consistency?

It is not purely based on which framework/system, but also the nature of the type of truth from each framework/system. Testing the truth of hydrogen + oxygen = H2O is easy is can be most true, but other more complicated truth may be difficult to test, e.g. The truth of Big Bang theory cannot be on par with the H2O truth.

You are still making stataements inside the scientific framework. How and why did you choose this framework?

What is most true will depend on who is rating the truth. Those who are not testing the truths may have to use faith to rely on the approval of scientists.

It's not just about WHO is rating the truth. It's also about how and why they are rating the truth.

If you don't have a mechanism for deciding which framework/system to use in any particular situation, then you are relying on faith.

Note the legal truth 'X is a convicted murderer within US Laws' may not be the same with a different prosecutor, defense lawyer, judge and jury. Such has happen many times.

How and why did you choose the legal system/framework?

The most effective is to rely on the Critical and Philosophical Thinking Framework to decide which framework to use.
E.g. to use the Critical and Philosophical Thinking Framework to decide whether to use the Divine-Theological Framework or Scientific Framework to decide on the truths of the Universe.

How and why did you decide which Philosophical system/framework yo use?

How can you be do dumb and stupid??

I will choose the Scientific Framework if I want to know certain truth.
For example this current COVID19 epidemic.
If I want to know the truth of the cause of this COVID19 epidemic, I will have to rely on the truths from scientists who had complied with Scientific Framework based on its proven track records.
Obviously I will not choose your grandmother's explanation from her tales, etc or the theists' claim it is from Satan or the left's claim that Trump caused it.

[Skepdick]

How can you be do dumb and stupid??

Exactly! How can you be so dumb and stupid?

I will choose the Scientific Framework if I want to know certain truth.

Well, how certain does your truth have to be? Certainty is quantifiable you know. Do you want it 1-certain or 64-certain?
5764234-certain?

For example this current COVID19 epidemic.
If I want to know the truth of the cause of this COVID19 epidemic

Why do you presuppose that there is such thing as "THE cause"? What if this is a multi-variate phenomenon and the multiple causes aligned - like the stars.

I will have to rely on the truths from scientists who had complied with Scientific Framework based on its proven track records.
Obviously I will not choose your grandmother's explanation from her tales, etc or the theists' claim it is from Satan or the left's claim that Trump caused it.

So what happens if there is no "root cause"? What happens if science can't give you the answer that you seek? What happens if there is no one answer, but a multitude of answers?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can you be do dumb and stupid??

Exactly! How can you be so dumb and stupid?

I will choose the Scientific Framework if I want to know certain truth.

Well, how certain does your truth have to be? Certainty is quantifiable you know. Do you want it 1-certain or 64-certain?
5764234-certain?

For example this current COVID19 epidemic.
If I want to know the truth of the cause of this COVID19 epidemic

Why do you presuppose that there is such thing as "THE cause"? What if this is a multi-variate phenomenon and the multiple causes aligned - like the stars.

I will have to rely on the truths from scientists who had complied with Scientific Framework based on its proven track records.
Obviously I will not choose your grandmother's explanation from her tales, etc or the theists' claim it is from Satan or the left's claim that Trump caused it.

So what happens if there is no "root cause"? What happens if science can't give you the answer that you seek? What happens if there is no one answer, but a multitude of answers?

How can you be so dumb and stupid?

If you don't believe the truth that is presently acknowledged by Science, i.e. the cause of the epidemic is the COVID19 virus or such a virus is non-existing, then you should walk freely in close contact with those who are suffering from it.

[uwot]

You can't utter words/concepts for which you have no in-memory representation.

That you can is precisely what Hume had to concede with the missing shade of blue.

[Skepdick]

How can you be so dumb and stupid?

Occam's razor. I am not.

If you don't believe the truth that is presently acknowledged by Science, i.e. the cause of the epidemic is the COVID19 virus or such a virus is non-existing, then you should walk freely in close contact with those who are suffering from it.

Ohhh. Look how you moved the goalposts. Why is that? Because you are a dumb philosopher.

First you said you wanted to know the cause of COVID19.
Suddenly you want to know the cause of the epidemic.

You already know what causes the epidemic - COVID19 cause sit.

Now that you Know The Truth! What are you going to do with it? Eat it? Fuck it? Piss on it?

[Skepdick]

That you can is precisely what Hume had to concede with the missing shade of blue.

Then I am not on Hume's team - no such concession need be made.

The example before you is nothing like the missing shade of blue - it's the exact opposite. Its mirror image.

The missing shade of blue is about continuity. Given the sequence 1,2,3,4,6,7 you can observe that something is missing between 4 and 6 IF you pre-suppose that the sequence is monotonically increasing. The discontinuity doesn't have a name/label/symbol associated with it, but in order to fill that gap one must assume that all functions are continuous - including the one you are observing right now, which needs not be true.

There is no 5 in 1,2,3,4,6,7, so you can't say that my car is not blue (not 5). Every number in every set that that does not contain 5 is (not 5).

So there is only one place remaining where 5 could possibly originate from - your head.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can you be so dumb and stupid?

Occam's razor. I am not.

If you don't believe the truth that is presently acknowledged by Science, i.e. the cause of the epidemic is the COVID19 virus or such a virus is non-existing, then you should walk freely in close contact with those who are suffering from it.

Ohhh. Look how you moved the goalposts. Why is that? Because you are a dumb philosopher.

First you said you wanted to know the cause of COVID19.
Suddenly you want to know the cause of the epidemic.

You already know what causes the epidemic - COVID19 cause sit.

Now that you Know The Truth! What are you going to do with it? Eat it? Fuck it? Piss on it?

Dumb.
Strawman again.

You questioned whether there is THE CAUSE;

Why do you presuppose that there is such thing as "THE cause"? What if this is a multi-variate phenomenon and the multiple causes aligned - like the stars.
viewtopic.php?p=445488#p445488

Yes there are underlying causes on how it spread so fast, people ignorance, lackadaisical attitude, etc. But these are secondary multi-variate causes.

However it is very obvious with such a case, there is a critical root cause to the epidemic with a 99% weightage.
Get rid of the Covid19 virus, there will be ZERO Covid19 infections and related death.
Thus the critical focus is to find the vaccine to Covid19.
The prevention of its spread, improvement people attitudes, preventive methods are secondary which is common to all other infectious diseases.

[Skepdick]

However it is very obvious with such a case, there is a critical root cause to the epidemic with a 99% weightage.

You are muddying the water to cover up your escape. Focus.

The root cause of the COVID19 outbreak is the SARS-CoV-2.

Now that you Know The Truth! What are you going to do with it? Eat it? Fuck it? Piss on it?

Get rid of the Covid19 virus, there will be ZERO Covid19 infections and related death.

The virus is SARS-CoV-2, not COVID19.

How do you propose we get rid of it?

Thus the critical focus is to find the vaccine to Covid19.

How do you propose we do this?

The prevention of its spread, improvement people attitudes, preventive methods are secondary which is common to all other infectious diseases.

They aren't secondary - for as long as you have no vaccine in sight, and no strategy on acquiring one containment is all you have.

[Skepdick]

The question "What is Truth?" is loaded. Asking it is going too far - it pre-supposes Truth.

The first question that you need to ask is: Does Truth exist?

What if it doesn't? Like God.

[Scott Mayers]

If any X is in some U, and some Y is not in U, then X is said to be true of or to U; Y is said to be not-true of or to U.

Truth is just an 'agreement' of comparison between at least two classes where one class is properly inside of another. Set theory uses the word, 'comparable' to describe this where general colloquial use is implying agreement between people in some common universe of discourse. In the latter, both people agree to some X as being in U.

I think too much further thought on this gets too convoluted and circular.

[RCSaunders]

If any X is in some U, and some Y is not in U, then X is said to be true of or to U; Y is said to be not-true of or to U.

Truth is just an 'agreement' of comparison between at least two classes where one class is properly inside of another. Set theory uses the word, 'comparable' to describe this where general colloquial use is implying agreement between people in some common universe of discourse. In the latter, both people agree to some X as being in U.

I think too much further thought on this gets too convoluted and circular.

I think your own view is already, "too convoluted and circular." From here:

Truth

By truth we mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If you feel very strongly that the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If an authority, scientist, or logician claims the liquid is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, feelings or authority. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.

There is no other kind of truth!