No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

[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.

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.

But it can easily be very true within the scientific framework and system of knowledge. To ASSUME otherwise, just shows how CLOSED some people can really be.

It is only true within your own personal "Skepdick-FSK" which is not proven to be credible at all.

Who, exactly, is that "fsk" not proven credible t,o at all?

And, what guidelines have to be met to make A, so called, "fsk" credible to that one?

See, if you are going to base that that, so called, "fsk" is not credible because that is one's own personal "fsk", then there is NOT one "fsk" that would be credible because EVERY one of them would be based on one's own personal "fsk", and until you inform us of what criteria makes a "fsk" credible, at all or completely, then your own criteria is, obviously, your own personal "veritas aequitas-fsk".

There is no "Skepdick-FSK" that is recognized out there like the Scientific FSK or other lesser credible FSKs, e.g. legal, economics, etc.

But I recognize "skepdick's-fsk". Therefore, THERE IT IS recognized, out there, and in here.

[Age]

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.

'Credibility' upon and by whom?

The model[s] you relied upon in the above are not credible at all!

LOL

You could NOT have MISSED the POINT anymore "veritas aequitas".

Try reading what "skepdick" is writing WITHOUT your own CURRENT BELIEFS being at your forefront.

Show proof they are recognized by the majority as credible if you insist you are correct.

So, are you now 'trying to' insist that whatever the majority view then that is credible, true, and/or right.

Also, how does ANY one proof ANY thing is recognized by the majority as credible? And, could the majority EVER be Wrong?

[Age]

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.

What notion of 'truth' is NOT inherently worthless, to you?

In other words, what notion of 'truth' is true?

Mastery of description - incompetence of prediction.

What has this got to do with 'truth'?

Also, what is competent of prediction?

[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.

What notion of 'truth' is NOT inherently worthless, to you?

In other words, what notion of 'truth' is true?

Mastery of description - incompetence of prediction.

What has this got to do with 'truth'?

Also, what is competent of prediction?

I thought I already made it clear. The truth is that there is no truth.

[Age]

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.

What notion of 'truth' is NOT inherently worthless, to you?

In other words, what notion of 'truth' is true?

Mastery of description - incompetence of prediction.

What has this got to do with 'truth'?

Also, what is competent of prediction?

I thought I already made it clear. The truth is that there is no truth.

LOL

"Clear" to who, exactly?

[Skepdick]

LOL

"Clear" to who, exactly?

To anyone who understands what it means.

[Age]

LOL

"Clear" to who, exactly?

To anyone who understands what it means.

Do you understand what it means?

If yes, then what does it mean, to you?

Also, is the sentence, 'It is true that this sentence is not true', also clear to you?

[Skepdick]

Do you understand what it means?

If yes, then what does it mean, to you?

It means that there is no truth.

What is it that you don't understand and why?

[RCSaunders]

It means that there is no truth.

Then that's a lie!

[Skepdick]

It means that there is no truth.

Then that's a lie!

Not if it's true.

[Age]

Do you understand what it means?

If yes, then what does it mean, to you?

It means that there is no truth.

But this is actually NOT true/the truth, correct?

What is it that you don't understand and why?

In regards to what, exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

They are based on Model-Dependent-Realism but they are specifically 'your' models but not the generally accepted [credible] Scientific Model that is accepted by all scientists and those who agree [rationally] with it.

According to this credible model the scientific truth is;
The color of this sentence is red.
specific to its specific wavelengths [or RGB code] within specific conditions.

The following;
"The color of this sentence is blue."
"The color of this sentence is green."
are only true to 'you' with 'your' model and not to anyone else,
until you can convince others [sufficient numbers] to agree with you or some with color-blindness may agree with you.

In addition, your model is too heavily linguistic and semantic [language games] based rather than being more scientific.

There is no Absolute Truth with a capital 'T'.
But the philosophical notion of 'truth' has utilities as long as the context is defined.

For example, within the context of Science, it is scientific true arsenic is very poisonous & toxic and merely small amounts can kill a person.
If according to you that "truth" is useless, then you and all those who agree with you need not comply with the above truth and thus can go ahead to consume things with lots of arsenic in it.
It is the same with the scientific truth, 'X things can kill humans.' Thus according to you, all humans can go against such truths like 'X things can kill humans' in accordance to their own specific "model dependent realism".

So with your own specific model dependent realism without intersubjective consensus, there will be no consistent credible truth [not absolute] and the consequences will be terrible for humanity.

[Dontaskme]

So with your own specific model dependent realism without intersubjective consensus, there will be no consistent credible truth [not absolute] and the consequences will be terrible for humanity.

There is no humanity. And that is a terrible realisation for humanity, the opposite is also true.

A lie is true, because truth cannot lie.

No Such Thing as, "The Truth" because ''The Truth'' is not a thing.

Skepdick is on point.

[Skepdick]

They are based on Model-Dependent-Realism but they are specifically 'your' models but not the generally accepted [credible] Scientific Model that is accepted by all scientists and those who agree [rationally] with it.

According to this credible model the scientific truth is;
The color of this sentence is red.
specific to its specific wavelengths [or RGB code] within specific conditions.

The following;
"The color of this sentence is blue."
"The color of this sentence is green."
are only true to 'you' with 'your' model and not to anyone else,
until you can convince others [sufficient numbers] to agree with you or some with color-blindness may agree with you.

I already said it, but your reading comprehension is clearly non-existent...

You are welcome to convince me why "red" is a "more credible" description of THIS COLOR, than "blue" or "green".
You are welcome to convince me why "red" is a "more credible" description of THIS SPECIFIC WAVELENGTH than "blue" or "green".

Specifically, I want you to complete this sentence: "Red is a more credible description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH than blue or green because......."

In addition, your model is too heavily linguistic and semantic [language games] based rather than being more scientific.

Oh, you have a non-linguistic/non-semantic model. Do you? Show me.

But the philosophical notion of 'truth' has utilities as long as the context is defined.

OK, so what's the utility of descriptive truths; and how have you come to determine whether any one description is better; or worse than another description?

For example, within the context of Science, it is scientific true arsenic is very poisonous & toxic and merely small amounts can kill a person.If according to you that "truth" is useless, then you and all those who agree with you need not comply with the above truth and thus can go ahead to consume things with lots of arsenic in it.

I had no plans on ever eating true arsenic, so you've just told me a completely useless truth. It's not like arsenic-rich foods come with labels on them.

When people learn not to eat things that kill them they hardly ever know WHY they shouldn't eat that particular thing.
But they do know THAT they shouldn't eat that particular thing.

The decision NOT to consume Hemlock was correct even before humans understood WHY Hemlock is poisonous.

It is the same with the scientific truth, 'X things can kill humans.' Thus according to you, all humans can go against such truths like 'X things can kill humans' in accordance to their own specific "model dependent realism".

Water can kill humans. If you drink enough of it. Do you then conclude that we shouldn't drink water?

So with your own specific model dependent realism without intersubjective consensus, there will be no consistent credible truth [not absolute] and the consequences will be terrible for humanity.

You still haven't answered me: If two truths are equivalently true then why is a credible truth better than an uncredible truth?

[Veritas Aequitas]

They are based on Model-Dependent-Realism but they are specifically 'your' models but not the generally accepted [credible] Scientific Model that is accepted by all scientists and those who agree [rationally] with it.

According to this credible model the scientific truth is;
The color of this sentence is red.
specific to its specific wavelengths [or RGB code] within specific conditions.

The following;
"The color of this sentence is blue."
"The color of this sentence is green."
are only true to 'you' with 'your' model and not to anyone else,
until you can convince others [sufficient numbers] to agree with you or some with color-blindness may agree with you.

I already said it, but your reading comprehension is clearly non-existent...

Don't be too hasty in your judgment until we get to the bottom of this issue, where I am confident you are the incompetent one.

You are welcome to convince me why "red" is a "more credible" description of THIS COLOR, than "blue" or "green".
You are welcome to convince me why "red" is a "more credible" description of THIS SPECIFIC WAVELENGTH than "blue" or "green".

Specifically, I want you to complete this sentence: "Red is a more credible description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH than blue or green because......."

According to this site there are about 6500 language in the world.
Therefore there are appx 6500 credible descriptions of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH is other than 'green' or 'blue' as claimed by the respective language users.
There would be more if we refer to dialects.

My claim;
"Red is a more credible description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH than blue or green because......." it is with reliance on our current scientific "model dependent realism" re the Science of Colors'.

The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

On the other hand your,
The description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH is blue or green, is "your" own personal model which is not in alignment with the current Scientific method from the scientific community.

In addition, your model is too heavily linguistic and semantic [language games] based rather than being more scientific.

Oh, you have a non-linguistic/non-semantic model. Do you? Show me.

I don't have a personal one.
As above I relied on the current Scientific method from the scientific community.

But the philosophical notion of 'truth' has utilities as long as the context is defined.

OK, so what's the utility of descriptive truths; and how have you come to determine whether any one description is better; or worse than another description?

Again I am relying on the current Scientific method from the scientific community which is still ongoing because its truth has utilities which are proven to be useful with the proviso [on the whole] it is net-positive against its side effects.

For example, within the context of Science, it is scientific true arsenic is very poisonous & toxic and merely small amounts can kill a person. If according to you that "truth" is useless, then you and all those who agree with you need not comply with the above truth and thus can go ahead to consume things with lots of arsenic in it.

I had no plans on ever eating true arsenic, so you've just told me a completely useless truth. It's not like arsenic-rich foods come with labels on them.

When people learn not to eat things that kill them they hardly ever know WHY they shouldn't eat that particular thing.
But they do know THAT they shouldn't eat that particular thing.

The decision NOT to consume Hemlock was correct even before humans understood WHY Hemlock is poisonous.

As I had stated whatever is 'truth' [NEVER ABSOLUTELY Absolute] has to come with its relevant context.
As such, "it is scientifically true arsenic is very poisonous & toxic and merely small amounts can kill a person" would be qualified with the amount that is likely to kill a person. A credible model would not be so stupid to make Absolute and unqualified assertions.

There are degrees to truth. In the past it was based on 'trial & error' 'cause & effect' truths which are nevertheless 'truth' of lesser precision, then humans progress with credible models to make more precise truths.

It is the same with the scientific truth, 'X things can kill humans.' Thus according to you, all humans can go against such truths like 'X things can kill humans' in accordance to their own specific "model dependent realism".

Water can kill humans. If you drink enough of it. Do you then conclude that we shouldn't drink water?

Is that based on "your" own home-made model of dependent realism? i.e. with unqualified and no-context conclusions. Don't assume I am that dumb to follow your logic.
As I had stated I am relying on the current scientific model which would have qualify all its truth with relevant details within specific context.

So with your own specific model dependent realism without intersubjective consensus, there will be no consistent credible truth [not absolute] and the consequences will be terrible for humanity.

You still haven't answered me: If two truths are equivalently true then why is a credible truth better than an uncredible truth?

I have already explained above.
If there are 2, 10 or more truths, I will take [though not blindly] the one verified and justified by our current scientific method from the scientific community as most credible than all others.

We have gone through this before re Why the current scientific model is the most reliable on truth of reality.
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338