No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

[Skepdick]

I don't mind any way you prefer to see "it".

I wouldn't mind even if you did mind.

[stevie]

I don't mind any way you prefer to see "it".

I wouldn't mind even if you did mind.

Perfect.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's true that there is no truth. It is a perfectly meaningful claim.

What is the purpose in making the declarative statement? What is the value of the statement? You believe what you say, obviously, and I guess I am asking if you derive something from it? (If I can frame it in that way). I am curious to know if you feel it is a helpful statement to make, and if so why?

[Skepdick]

What is the purpose in making the declarative statement? What is the value of the statement? You believe what you say, obviously, and I guess I am asking if you derive something from it? (If I can frame it in that way). I am curious to know if you feel it is a helpful statement to make, and if so why?

Because meaning is apiori truth.

"This color is green" is a true statement. Having defined it ostensively you now understand my meaning.

Your "red" means the same thing as my "green". Both descriptions of the color are true.

red.png

[Alexis Jacobi]

Because meaning is a priori truth.

"This color is green" is a true statement. Having defined it ostensibly you now understand my meaning.

Your "red" means the same thing as my "green". Both descriptions of the color are true.

There were a couple of typos in your post, I think — I’d imagine you are writing on your phone — which I corrected.

I don’t understand what you have written.

[Skepdick]

There were a couple of typos in your post, I think — I’d imagine you are writing on your phone — which I corrected.

I don’t understand what you have written.

You didn't correct it. You screwed it up.

I meant ostensively. Not ostensibly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition

Do you understand my (trivial) claim that the color I showed you is green? It's a yes/no question.

If you are a proponent of the correspondence theory of truth (a statement is true if it correctly describes reality), then "This color is green" is a true statement. Having ostensively defined the way I've defined it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you are a proponent of the correspondence theory of truth (a statement is true if it correctly describes reality), then "This color is green" is a true statement. Having ostensively defined the way I've defined it.

My apologies. I saw one type and thought the other one was as well.

No, I am not really a proponent of one theory or another. If you must flush me out of my comfortable hiding place I tend to work with more simplified notions about things.

I think I understand that you are trying to get to something when you say, if indeed you do say, there is no such thing as the truth (and possibly truth) and (again if I understand you) I agree on one level: that there are all manner of truth-claims that might be said to approximate ‘truths’. But I am frankly uncertain what you are trying to say.

I would guess that what you are trying to say is that if you attach a name to a thing (the red dot is ‘green’) that your statement is true because you assert it is true, or make it true. But I’d be guessing . . .

[Skepdick]

I would guess that what you are trying to say is that if you attach a name to a thing (the red dot is ‘green’) that your statement is true because you assert it is true, or make it true. But I’d be guessing . . .

Yes, something thereabout. The correspondence theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth ) says that a sentence is true if it corresponds to reality.

The sentence "The color of this sentence is green" is true because the color of the sentence is indeed green.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The sentence "The color of this sentence is green" is true because the color of the sentence is indeed green.

If I keep reading you satori may come upon me!

So then, 2+2=5

(Just messing with you.)

[Age]

I would guess that what you are trying to say is that if you attach a name to a thing (the red dot is ‘green’) that your statement is true because you assert it is true, or make it true. But I’d be guessing . . .

Yes, something thereabout. The correspondence theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth ) says that a sentence is true if it corresponds to reality.

The sentence "The color of this sentence is green" is true because the color of the sentence is indeed green.

But 'true' is relative. So what is 'true', to you, is NOT necessarily 'true', to ANY one "else".

As just PROVEN here above.

By the way, when and if what 'thee Truth' ACTUALLY IS is discovered/learned, and understood, then what is also understood is that what you said above is NOT ACTUALLY 'true' AT ALL.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would guess that what you are trying to say is that if you attach a name to a thing (the red dot is ‘green’) that your statement is true because you assert it is true, or make it true. But I’d be guessing . . .

Yes, something thereabout. The correspondence theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth ) says that a sentence is true if it corresponds to reality.

The sentence "The color of this sentence is green" is true because the color of the sentence is indeed green.

Your epistemological hole is too loose that is why it will fit whatever the square peg.

There is no absolute reality independent of any human element.
As such whatever is 'Reality' must be specific to a Framework & System of Knowledge [FSK].
So what is truth in this case is conformance to reality within a specific FSK.
The most credible truth is those of the credible scientific FSK.

Therefore your,
"The sentence 'The color of this sentence is green' " cannot be true within the Scientific FSK.

It is only true within your own personal "Skepdick-FSK" which is not proven to be credible at all. There is no "Skepdick-FSK" that is recognized out there like the Scientific FSK or other lesser credible FSKs, e.g. legal, economics, etc.

[Skepdick]

Your epistemological hole is too loose that is why it will fit whatever the square peg.

There is no absolute reality independent of any human element.
As such whatever is 'Reality' must be specific to a Framework & System of Knowledge [FSK].
So what is truth in this case is conformance to reality within a specific FSK.
The most credible truth is those of the credible scientific FSK.

Therefore your,
"The sentence 'The color of this sentence is green' " cannot be true within the Scientific FSK.

It is only true within your own personal "Skepdick-FSK" which is not proven to be credible at all. There is no "Skepdick-FSK" that is recognized out there like the Scientific FSK or other lesser credible FSKs, e.g. legal, economics, etc.

You are an idiot. What I am demonstrating is precisely Model-dependent realism.

The meaning of empirical phenomena is interpreted through the lens of the scientific model being used.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is blue
The color of this sentence is green

All of the above are true/factual within their respective models.

[Skepdick]

The sentence "The color of this sentence is green" is true because the color of the sentence is indeed green.

If I keep reading you satori may come upon me!

So then, 2+2=5

(Just messing with you.)

Well actually...

It depends on what it is you are adding, and it depends on what "+" means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPY5cfOOIM&t=516s

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your epistemological hole is too loose that is why it will fit whatever the square peg.

There is no absolute reality independent of any human element.
As such whatever is 'Reality' must be specific to a Framework & System of Knowledge [FSK].
So what is truth in this case is conformance to reality within a specific FSK.
The most credible truth is those of the credible scientific FSK.

Therefore your,
"The sentence 'The color of this sentence is green' " cannot be true within the Scientific FSK.

It is only true within your own personal "Skepdick-FSK" which is not proven to be credible at all. There is no "Skepdick-FSK" that is recognized out there like the Scientific FSK or other lesser credible FSKs, e.g. legal, economics, etc.

You are an idiot. What I am demonstrating is precisely Model-dependent realism.

The meaning of empirical phenomena is interpreted through the lens of the scientific model being used.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is blue
The color of this sentence is green

All of the above are true/factual within their respective models.

Yes it is Model-Dependent-Realism.

But there is the question of the credibility of the specific model.
The model[s] you relied upon in the above are not credible at all! Show proof they are recognized by the majority as credible if you insist you are correct.

[Skepdick]

Yes it is Model-Dependent-Realism.

But there is the question of the credibility of the specific model.
The model[s] you relied upon in the above are not credible at all! Show proof they are recognized by the majority as credible if you insist you are correct.

All three models I've presented you with are equivalent.

In so far as their utility is describing the phenomenon that is THIS COLOR they perform an identical function.

If (for any reason) you decide that one model is "more credible" than another model (when they are obviously equivalent) that's entirely a political/social issue. But if you disagree, you are welcome to convince me why green is a "more credible" description for THIS COLOR than blue.

That's the crux of why the Philosophical notion of "truth" is inherently worthless. Mastery of description - incompetence of prediction.